# Is the 5E player base going to split?



## Reynard

Idle curiosity about how folks feel. I don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.

So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.

What do you think?

Also, be nice.

EDITED for grammar.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

I am saying this then going back to lurking so it doesn't start a fight.

yes it will split, nothing can stop it, we already see it with tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse. there is no way to avoid it.  The question of how bad it is comes down to if you side with the majority or not.


----------



## Maxperson

Reynard said:


> Idle curiosity about how folks feel. i don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.
> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? Iknow that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Also, be nice.



I think probably not a split.  There wasn't really a split when 3e went to 3.5.  The reason for that was the changes, despite being incorrectly billed as compatible, were significant enough to warrant buying the new core books.  

WotC has told yet again that 5e to 5.5e will be compatible, but they know that if the changes are so minor that compatibility exists, huge number of people won't fork over the money for new core books.  That means that very likely 5.5e changes will be significant and no true compatibility will be possible.  You could play them together, but there will be balance issues like there were with 3e and 3.5e.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Going? That implies a fanbase that isn't as perpetually fractured as an egg in a blender.


----------



## Oofta

Be nice?  Bah humbug!  This is the internet, no fancy pancy nice here!  Why back in my day we didn't even have an internet to yell at each other, we were still heard by the neighbors and the neighbors were a mile away!*  So to heck with your nice and get off my lawn!

*_True story.  Our croquet games could get quite rambunctious._


----------



## billd91

It's not going to be an edition split like 3e/4e. I expect it's going to be more like a 1e UA/non-UA kind of split. Some people aren't going to use the updated racial abilities/monsters in Multiverse because they don't like the changes or because they don't own the resource.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> I think probably not a split.  There wasn't really a split when 3e went to 3.5.  The reason for that was the changes, despite being incorrectly billed as compatible, were significant enough to warrant buying the new core books.
> 
> WotC has told yet again that 5e to 5.5e will be compatible, but they know that if the changes are so minor that compatibility exists, huge number of people won't fork over the money for new core books.  That means that very likely 5.5e changes will be significant and no true compatibility will be possible.  You could play them together, but there will be balance issues like there were with 3e and 3.5e.



Yeah, I expect something similar to the 3.0 to 3.5 shift.  As was said above, they have to make the changes significant enough to warrant buying new books, which means they're significant enough to have players taking sides.

I have already decided that my D&D gaming is going to be Level Up plus my giant homebrew document (referred to by my group as the Micahnomicon), so I look forward to seeing how it turns out.


----------



## Oofta

I don't think it's going to fracture more than it already has.  When the new books come out, I'll discuss it with the home group.  Since we run everything off DDB, we'll probably migrate.  It's not like there hasn't been edition changes before that were less controversial than the switch to 4E and I doubt they'll rush a radical change* like that again.

_*according to the 4E team pushed out well before it was ready, they wanted something like Essentials on release._


----------



## Jer

The 5e playing base is already split.  You don't get an edition of D&D that lasts for nearly a decade without the playing base splintering off into folks who allow this rule but not that rule, or these races but not those races, or nerf an entire class, or whatever.  It's been that way since 1e AD&D came into existence and people noped out to keep playing OD&D instead.

Now will it be a significant split along the lines of the 2e/3e split or the 3e/4e split?  If Wizards is smart and handles it well then it shouldn't.  The core rules of the game don't need major changes the way that both 2e and 3e needed major updates to get current and to simplify things down respectively, and the current rules are overwhelmingly more popular that any edition has previously been.  

There are a lot of ways they could screw it up and shoot the golden goose they have right now in the back of the head so I'm not going to vote either way.  There doesn't have to be a major split with this anniversary release, but Wizards can always screw it up.


----------



## LordEntrails

Sure, at least a dozen folks will for whatever reason "split". Regardless of how you define such.

But, regardless of how you define split, and (almost) no matter what the changes in 5.5 are, the vast majority of folks will just go along and adopt. Sure some waters might be muddied. But other than those of us who pay attention and feel a dog in one fight or another, everyone else will just play whatever is put on their table. Not because they are indifferent, but because spending time with their friends (or making new ones) is more important than if a gnome has a set of ability score modifiers or if they can pick and chose their abilities bonuses (or any other rule that may change).


----------



## John R Davis

It will have people going different ways. For different reasons. The rules changes, the art, the feel, etc.

Its not a problem.


----------



## TwoSix

I think that not everyone will buy or use the 5.X revised books, but I'm pretty confident the changes will be minimal enough that you can use a character with a 2014 PHB class, a Tasha's subclass, and a Ravnica race in the same game as a character with all 5.X rules.  

Changing how you build a character doesn't make editions incompatible.  It only matters if the character building final outputs are different, like how 3.5 got rid of some skills and replaced them with others.  

I don't think 5.X is going to do something like have classes give 6 skills baseline, change the proficiency bonus scaling, or have races now give +5 total mods to stats.  Nothing that impacts the underlying math.


----------



## payn

It will split, but be mild. Some folks will make it out be Armageddon.


----------



## Micah Sweet

LordEntrails said:


> Sure, at least a dozen folks will for whatever reason "split". Regardless of how you define such.
> 
> But, regardless of how you define split, and (almost) no matter what the changes in 5.5 are, the vast majority of folks will just go along and adopt. Sure some waters might be muddied. But other than those of us who pay attention and feel a dog in one fight or another, everyone else will just play whatever is put on their table. Not because they are indifferent, but because spending time with their friends (or making new ones) is more important than if a gnome has a set of ability score modifiers or if they can pick and chose their abilities bonuses (or any other rule that may change).



I agree, in play most people won't care.  The real question is, who is going to throw another $200 at a set of core books that, according to many on this board, offer very little actual change in the game?  I'm not sure i would do that even if I liked the changes.


----------



## Yora

As someone who's run one 5th edition campaign for half a year and regards it as "a workable system if out of game factors demand it", any potential new campaign I might start in the future won't motivate me to get new books.


----------



## Baldurs_Underdark

Of course it will split. These are D&D players. They have a +12 on Opinions. 

It will be just like the Great Rift between those who think spellcasters are OP and those who think that's nonsense.
It will be just like the Great Divide between those who play the adventure books and those who Homebrew.
It will be just like the [pick any topic on this forum].

In fact, I am certain this forum has it's golden days still ahead. 

Also, only stupid players will allow these updates to break up their D&D group.


----------



## Steampunkette

Probably not.

Some people might be like "I don't like these changes, so I'm gonna still use the 5e rules instead of the 5.5e rules for this stuff. But the rest is cool" and people will throw a tempest in a teacup over it...

But they'll just keep playing their games and no one will really care outside of the occasional forum argument.

Though I anticipate a goodly chunk of the "Old Guard" of D&D will complain, as they often do, regardless of how tiny a given change is.


----------



## Lidgar

As others said, I think it will continue to fracture. Not just 5.0 vs 5.5, but others will step in as Level Up already has. 

I'm sure Paizo, Goodman Games, and others will continue to look at opportunities to provide 5E-derrivitive options for those not interested in 5.5. 

However, with its huge fanbase -especially now in the VTT environment - I think 5.5 will garner the lion's share of the market, unlike what happened with 4E and Paizo.

_Me, I'm just a lawnmower - you can tell me by the way I walk_


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> I agree, in play most people won't care.  The real question is, who is going to throw another $200 at a set of core books that, according to many on this board, offer very little actual change in the game?  I'm not sure i would do that even if I liked the changes.



The thing to keep in mind is that people are still buying the core books and D&D is making Wizards a lot of money as it stands right now.  Unlike previous edition changes, Wizards doesn't actually need to apply the defibrilators and get the current player base to go out and rebuy all of the books they already own with a new edition.  Historically that's when TSR and Wizards have gone to the new edition well - when the edition's sales have started to slump and they need to revitalize the brand.

They could, if they choose, put out a new printing of the current core books with new art, updated with errata, and no other changes instead of putting out another printing of the current books and probably pay for it on new sales and the (probably larger than you think) group of people who would buy it just for the new art.  They don't actually need to make a bunch of changes to get the existing player base to buy new books at this point to keep the game going, and if they decide to go that route I'm afraid it will blow up in their faces.


----------



## DEFCON 1

At the end of the day, the 2024 book will be nothing more than a book of alternate and/or additional rules, no different than _Xanathar's_ and _Tasha's_.  And some people will adopt them, others won't.

If there's any semblance of a "split"... it'll just be the same as it always is:  a few people who don't like some of the alternate and/or additional rules will come here on the boards saying the rules are terrible, the game has been destroyed, the designers are lazy/stupid for creating what they did, and that they are going to have to leave the game now because D&D has left them behind, whoa is me.

No different than what happens after every single player-facing book gets released.


----------



## Reynard

Jer said:


> They could, if they choose, put out a new printing of the current core books with new art, updated with errata, and no other changes instead of putting out another printing of the current books and probably pay for it on new sales and the (probably larger than you think) group of people who would buy it just for the new art.  They don't actually need to make a bunch of changes to get the existing player base to buy new books at this point to keep the game going, and if they decide to go that route I'm afraid it will blow up in their faces.



Many folks forget or are unaware this is exactly what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition. The Black Border books were reprints with new art and some errata applied, not 2.5.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> I agree, in play most people won't care.  The real question is, who is going to throw another $200 at a set of core books that, according to many on this board, offer very little actual change in the game?  I'm not sure i would do that even if I liked the changes.



Personally, I'm hoping that the changes are as much mechanical expansion as revision, and are more extensive. (1-2 new subclasses per class, maybe a new class and/or rejiggered classes, more Feats as feats become standard, some spell revisions, etc.)  Lots of new material, but as I said in my previous post, still compatible with all 5.0 material.  

If it's just pushing the Tasha's/MotM race revisions into core, and a bunch of lore changes, than I'm definitely not buying it.  Not because I object to those changes, that's simply not enough change to pony up money for.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that people are still buying the core books and D&D is making Wizards a lot of money as it stands right now.  Unlike previous edition changes, Wizards doesn't actually need to apply the defibrilators and get the current player base to go out and rebuy all of the books they already own with a new edition.  Historically that's when TSR and Wizards have gone to the new edition well - when the edition's sales have started to slump and they need to revitalize the brand.
> 
> They could, if they choose, put out a new printing of the current core books with new art, updated with errata, and no other changes instead of putting out another printing of the current books and probably pay for it on new sales and the (probably larger than you think) group of people who would buy it just for the new art.  They don't actually need to make a bunch of changes to get the existing player base to buy new books at this point to keep the game going, and if they decide to go that route I'm afraid it will blow up in their faces.



I can't speak to art; it has never been a deciding factor for me in the context of an RPG.

As far as the rest of it is concerned, printing a new set of books, writing new copy (quite a lot of it especially in the MM) and commissioning new art all costs a lot of money.  WotC will want and expect people to buy these books, and I think a lot of folks are not going to want to throw $200 away on books that don't give them something significant.  And in doing so, they will of necessity draw battle lines.


----------



## Jer

Reynard said:


> Many folks forget or are unaware this is exactly what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition. The Black Border books were reprints with new art and some errata applied, not 2.5.



Yup - they updated the art and layout without changing the rules much. More like a Call of Cthulhu edition change than the D&D ones have been.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Many folks forget or are unaware this is exactly what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition. The Black Border books were reprints with new art and some errata applied, not 2.5.



True, but TSR didn't advertise rules and lore changes with those books either.  WotC has.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> At the end of the day, the 2024 book will be nothing more than a book of alternate and/or additional rules, no different than _Xanathar's_ and _Tasha's_.  And some people will adopt them, others won't.
> 
> If there's any semblance of a "split"... it'll just be the same as it always is:  a few people who don't like some of the alternate and/or additional rules will come here on the boards saying the rules are terrible, the game has been destroyed, the designers are lazy/stupid for creating what they did, and that they are going to have to leave the game now because D&D has left them behind, whoa is me.
> 
> No different than what happens after every single player-facing book gets released.



Always happy to hear from you DEFCON 1.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> Always happy to hear from you DEFCON 1.



What can I say?  After being on these boards for almost 20 years and hearing the same format of complaints year after year, same song same dance... you become jaded.


----------



## overgeeked

The bigger the changes the more likely we are to see a split; the smaller the changes the less likely. 

If they actually keep with their "promise" of backward compatibility, then we're unlikely to see the fanbase split. And if we do, it'll be a minor one. Akin to a few dozen or hundred grognards getting bent out of shape about alignment and floating ASI and rage quitting over something it's trivial to house rule back in.


----------



## TwoSix

overgeeked said:


> The bigger the changes the more likely we are to see a split; the smaller the changes the less likely.
> 
> If they actually keep with their "promise" of backward compatibility, then we're unlikely to see the fanbase split. And if we do, it'll be a minor one. Akin to a few dozen or hundred grognards getting bent out of shape about alignment and floating ASI and rage quitting over something it's trivial to house rule back in.



My only concern is WotC publishing a backwards compatible revised PHB, but some DMs requiring the new books despite the old books still being compatible.  That attitude would need to be shamed mercilessly.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> The bigger the changes the more likely we are to see a split; the smaller the changes the less likely.
> 
> If they actually keep with their "promise" of backward compatibility, then we're unlikely to see the fanbase split. And if we do, it'll be a minor one. Akin to a few dozen or hundred grognards getting bent out of shape about alignment and floating ASI and rage quitting over something it's trivial to house rule back in.



I still think the real question is who's going to re-buy their core books.


----------



## aco175

I do not see a big deal with the changed as of now.  The fear of the unknown and internet rumors drive us to panic.  I think most will depend on how much the initial books will cost.  If they print a lot and the cost is in the 30$ish, then fine, but if they want 60$ish after any discount, then we will see people upset.  If they want to try and force you to DDBeyond and go digital, same problem.


----------



## Umbran

Steampunkette said:


> Some people might be like "I don't like these changes, so I'm gonna still use the 5e rules instead of the 5.5e rules for this stuff. But the rest is cool" and people will throw a tempest in a teacup over it...




I agree.  What we have seen so far is that the changes largely lie in the space of character generation, rather than to anything notable in the resolution mechanics, and without drastically altering the power level of PCs.

That means that, even if you don't like those changes, and don't buy the new core rulebooks, you'll find precious little in the way of continuing to buy adventures or other supporting materials.  That's what I think real compatibility is, honestly.


----------



## Micah Sweet

aco175 said:


> I do not see a big deal with the changed as of now.  The fear of the unknown and internet rumors drive us to panic.  I think most will depend on how much the initial books will cost.  If they print a lot and the cost is in the 30$ish, then fine, but if they want 60$ish after any discount, then we will see people upset.  If they want to try and force you to DDBeyond and go digital, same problem.



They are going to use this opportunity to increase the MSRP; they've been putting it off for years.  The price-gouging format of the upcoming Spelljammer material is evidence of this.  I expect $60-$65 per book.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> I still think the real question is who's going to re-buy their core books.



I will.  I have no problem with that.  The way I see it... I spent what... $120 or so eight years ago back in 2014 for a trio of books?  I got WAY MORE than enough use out of all three of them these past 8 years to get my money's worth dozens of times over.  To think that I'd have any sort of issue spending another $180(?) or so two years from now for another 8 years of frequent use is kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

Heck, if we're talking 24 months to get $180 for a new set of core books... that's just $7.50 a month if I start saving right now.  Cut back on one trip to McDonalds a month or a pair of Starbucks coffees and I will have the cash to buy the three core books when they get released no problem.


----------



## overgeeked

TwoSix said:


> My only concern is WotC publishing a backwards compatible revised PHB, but some DMs requiring the new books despite the old books still being compatible. That attitude would need to be shamed mercilessly.



I'm sure a few jerks will do that, but in my experience it's more likely that DMs will be cool about it. It tends to be the players pushing the use of the newest and coolest books, especially if there's kewl new powers to abuse.


Micah Sweet said:


> I still think the real question is who's going to re-buy their core books.



Who knows. The character creation changes we basically know about. Floating ASI, race changes as per post-Tasha's, etc. But we also know that the monster stat blocks and mechanics are changing slightly, so the MM will likely be different. Hopefully updated so the monsters are more than boring bags of hit points with maybe a multiattack. The real question is the DMG. It's been slagged from day one. So many people don't bother reading it that it's a meme. Return of the Lazy DM is a better DMG. The 4E DMGs are better DMGs. I don't see them simply reprinting the book. I expect the biggest changes will be there. Or, more accurately, I _hope_ the biggest changes are there.


----------



## aco175

Micah Sweet said:


> They are going to use this opportunity to increase the MSRP; they've been putting it off for years.  The price-gouging format of the upcoming Spelljammer material is evidence of this.  I expect $60-$65 per book.



Would the Amazon cost be more 30-35 though?  I certainly see some sort of increase, but I recall the 3e model was that they printed so many books that the cost was less initially.


----------



## Mercurius

There is this strange notion that D&D players are a monolithic group, that (almost) everyone plays one version of the game, one set of rules, with little variation. 

Now maybe this is more true today than it was in decades past. Maybe the current boom of "Stranger Babies" (post-Stranger Things) tend more towards playing the RAW, and sticking to whatever WotC publishes - I have no idea.

But part of the problem, and perception around "splitting the fan base," is the idea that either we all cohere around the same set of rules and book, or we're "splintered." Or that it isn't natural for us to splinter off and diverge - or customize the game to our liking.

Meaning, I'm questioning this notion that the player base is or should be moving lock-step from one edition to the other. Rather, what if D&D is more like a tree, that branches endlessly, and each "blossom" at the end of a twig is a single game group? 

There will still be, by default, a central limb or branch from which most campaigns blossom. But even within that, there is great (endless) diversity. 

I think back to an aspect of WotC's marketing before 5E came out. They said that everyone was invited, that D&D was more than just one edition or set of rules. They even made impossible promises that they couldn't keep: that everything would be compatible with 5E, everything supported. To give them some credit, this isn't entirely false; they opened up the past library for download, they created DM's Guild, etc. And of course there's only so much that they can do; providing rules conversions for every edition of D&D for every product is simply not worth spending their resources on.

But I think the spirit of "we're all D&D players, everyone's invited - if you want to use this, hopefully you can, but if not and want to stick with your hybrid TSR game, that's fine too" is a good one. 

In fact, if I were to WotC, I would double-down--again and again--on this tenet: "Make the game your own. We'll provide the core rules, and keep adapting them to what we feel like represents the current player base as much as possible, providing new settings and adventures that explore the possibilities of the game, but we're not excluding anyone, and even if you play an older version of the game, or a hybrid of some kind, hopefully you can use what we publish in your game in some form or fashion."

In other words, not only normalize hybridization, but advocate for it. The core rules are just something to improvise off of, to whatever degree you like. In fact, what is "core" is _your _game.

But it is also on the fan base to respond in kind. There are always going to be people who are disappointed with the current state of the game, whether because they preferred the version in (what they imagine was) the D&D of 24.271 years ago (or whatever), or because WotC is going in a direction that is further and further from what feels like 'D&D to me." Some of this might be warranted, as change is not inherently good (or bad) - but to some degree this implies a certain degree of stubborn entitlement, as if it is WotC's responsible to cater to _my _preferences, whatever they are.

This is, of course, impossible - not simply because they can't please everyone all of the time, but that--by economic necessity--they have to remain focused on their actual, current demographic.

Things change. The game moves on, and the base is different now. By my estimations, more than half of WotC's estimated 55-60 million people who have ever played D&D, started up since 5E began. That's 30 million or so players who are Zennials or cuspy Millenials (say, born c. 1995 or later). And of the remaining 25-30 million who started earlier, probably only 5 million or so still actively play or purchase products.

(The exact numbers aren't important, but the main point is: there are many times as many newer players than there are carryovers from earlier editions).

So maybe "splintering" isn't such a bad thing? At least if we embody that spirit of "everyone's invited," which means that all versions of D&D are valid and fine, because they're all part of the same tree that is the ever-growing tradition of D&D. Meaning, maybe the negative elements of splintering--the in-fighting, the "if you don't like this, then you're x," or "if you like that, then you're y"--could be jettisoned, but that's at least somewhat--if not _mostly--_on us. It _is _WotC's job to set the tone, to provide the context of the game as it is today, but that still means that a lot is up to us.


----------



## Oofta

Micah Sweet said:


> They are going to use this opportunity to increase the MSRP; they've been putting it off for years.  The price-gouging format of the upcoming Spelljammer material is evidence of this.  I expect $60-$65 per book.



To paraphrase The Princess Bride I don't think  "price gouging" means what you think it means.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> They are going to use this opportunity to increase the MSRP; they've been putting it off for years. The *price-gouging* format of the upcoming Spelljammer material is evidence of this. I expect $60-$65 per book.



It's a luxury product for a niche of a niche hobby. Price gouging is jacking up the cost of food, medicine, housing, and fuel...especially during an emergency. They're not in the same universe as a game book that you think it too expensive. I get that this is the internet and hyperbole is second nature to some...but really, settle down.


----------



## Micah Sweet

aco175 said:


> Would the Amazon cost be more 30-35 though?  I certainly see some sort of increase, but I recall the 3e model was that they printed so many books that the cost was less initially.



If you normally buy through Amazon, then the price still goes up for you.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> I can't speak to art; it has never been a deciding factor for me in the context of an RPG.
> 
> As far as the rest of it is concerned, printing a new set of books, writing new copy (quite a lot of it especially in the MM) and commissioning new art all costs a lot of money.  WotC will want and expect people to buy these books, and I think a lot of folks are not going to want to throw $200 away on books that don't give them something significant.  And in doing so, they will of necessity draw battle lines.



History hasnt really supported this. Folks always buy the new books. Whether its curiosity, desire for new material, of folks first go around with an RPG. Even the 4E launch sold really well. You also discount PDFs/online tools, which are more affordable. Folks often scoff at a new printing as a cash grab or a bridge too far, but it just never pans out.


----------



## Mercurius

I realize my post above (#37) diverged a bit from what the OP is asking, but I think it is relevant. But to take one element from that, and to respond more directly to the OP, I think a lot depends upon how the "Stranger Babies" respond to this change. The old-timers who are still around have gone through this before, some several times. But what we don't know is how the new player base will respond to changes in a game that, for them, has not yet changed.

And of course a lot of their response depends upon how much the game changes, and in what ways. But I think WotC is very aware of this, and will try bring the game only up to the edge of what they think won't rock the boat too much.

Another fact that seems barely mentioned, but I think is huge: 5E is quite different from past editions in that there are minimal splats. Most of what is published are adventures and settings, and those sorts of products are more "update resistant" than splats. We've already seen WotC's planned approach: they folded two older splats (Volo's and Mordenkainen's) into one new book. Presumably they'll incorporate two more, Xanathar's and Tasha's, into the 50th anniversary PHB.

Meaning, they aren't going to have to re-publish everything - just the core rules, and then move on from there. They could even do a 5.5 and the uproar will be (or should be) less than in past editions, because there is less to update, and most of it can be updated within the core rulebooks.

So my prediction is that it will be more seamless a transition to the 50th anniversary because of the nature of the 5E product line: heavy on adventures and settings, relatively light on splats.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> It's a luxury product for a niche of a niche hobby. Price gouging is jacking up the cost of food, medicine, housing, and fuel...especially during an emergency. They're not in the same universe as a game book that you think it too expensive. I get that this is the internet and hyperbole is second nature to some...but really, settle down.



If you don't like the phrase, I apologize.  But they are charging more for less material than has been the case, so there's something to it.  It has nothing to do with anything but gaming, so I don't quite understand your issue with my terminology, but I withdraw it if you're bothered.


----------



## Reynard

It would make sense for the revised PHB and DMG to mostly just fold in player and DM information from Xanathars and Tasha's.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> If you don't like the phrase, I apologize.  But they are charging more for less material than has been the case, so there's something to it.  It has nothing to do with anything but gaming, so I don't quite understand your issue with my terminology, but I withdraw it if you're bothered.



It's not that folks don't like the phrase, it's that it is completely inaccurate.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> History hasnt really supported this. Folks always buy the new books. Whether its curiosity, desire for new material, of folks first go around with an RPG. Even the 4E launch sold really well. You also discount PDFs/online tools, which are more affordable. Folks often scoff at a new printing as a cash grab or a bridge too far, but it just never pans out.



I don't think its a cash grab specifically.  I think what they have said they're changing is not enough to justify re-buying the books.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think its a cash grab specifically.  I think what they have said they're changing is not enough to justify re-buying the books.



I mean, I think tons will sell as the big 5-Oh anniversary collectors items alone.


----------



## delericho

To a large extent, it depends how wide-ranging the changes are. My gut feeling is that we're looking at something more like "4e Essentials" than 3.0e -> 3.5e, or possibly even 1st -> 2nd.

That being the case, there will be a 'split' in that some groups move to 5.5e, some stay with 5.0e, and many will adopt some sort of hybrid, but there probably won't be any sort of edition war between the two. And where there is movement of players between groups, I expect that to be fairly seamless.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mercurius said:


> I realize my post above (#37) diverged a bit from what the OP is asking, but I think it is relevant. But to take one element from that, and to respond more directly to the OP, I think a lot depends upon how the "Stranger Babies" respond to this change. The old-timers who are still around have gone through this before, some several times. But what we don't know is how the new player base will respond to changes in a game that, for them, has not yet changed.
> 
> And of course a lot of their response depends upon how much the game changes, and in what ways. But I think WotC is very aware of this, and will try bring the game only up to the edge of what they think won't rock the boat too much.
> 
> Another fact that seems barely mentioned, but I think is huge: 5E is quite different from past editions in that there are minimal splats. Most of what is published are adventures and settings, and those sorts of products are more "update resistant" than splats. We've already seen WotC's planned approach: they folded two older splats (Volo's and Mordenkainen's) into one new book. Presumably they'll incorporate two more, Xanathar's and Tasha's, into the 50th anniversary PHB.
> 
> Meaning, they aren't going to have to re-publish everything - just the core rules, and then move on from there. They could even do a 5.5 and the uproar will be (or should be) less than in past editions, because there is less to update, and most of it can be updated within the core rulebooks.
> 
> So my prediction is that it will be more seamless a transition to the 50th anniversary because of the nature of the 5E product line: heavy on adventures and settings, relatively light on splats.



Doing that would make sense from one perspective, but it would also make the new books even less worth paying for than otherwise, as the re-print percentage would go up.


----------



## Mercurius

While "price-gouging" might not be the right term, there is something to the idea of taking what essentially amounts to a $50 hardcover (and a smaller one, at that) and putting it in $70 packaging. I know, you get a slip case, a second map, and a DM's screen, but that isn't unlike various "gift sets" that you buy that force you to pay for extras, even if you only want the main product.

Meaning, I don't think it is unreasonable to be slightly miffed that a person, who only wants the meat of the product, has to pay $20 extra for stuff they don't care about. This might have been softened somewhat if, say, it was a meatier meat product! (e.g. three 96-page books).

What I think WotC _should _have done is offer it in two formats: A normal hardcover with two maps, and a "deluxe slipcase" version as they're publishing. Or simply made it a meatier product. Sure, they would have lost sales on the more expensive product, but they'd probably sell more and make up the difference.


----------



## delericho

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't think its a cash grab specifically.  I think what they have said they're changing is not enough to justify re-buying the books.



Honestly, I'm at a point where just putting in a good index and putting it in good bindings is enough to justify a re-buy.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> It's not that folks don't like the phrase, it's that it is completely inaccurate.



What would you prefer then?  I'm accomodating.


----------



## Mercurius

Micah Sweet said:


> Doing that would make sense from one perspective, but it would also make the new books even less worth paying for than otherwise, as the re-print percentage would go up.



I don't follow. Could you re-phrase? What do you mean by "re-print percentage?"


----------



## Vaalingrade

delericho said:


> Honestly, I'm at a point where just putting in a good index and putting it in good bindings is enough to justify a re-buy.



I feel like you're going to be disappointed.

This is an industry that is allergic to good indexes.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Reynard said:


> Idle curiosity about how folks feel. I don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.
> 
> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Also, be nice.
> 
> EDITED for grammar.



I don't think it will, mostly because it will have been a longer time. 3.5e came out only three years after 3.0e. This will be a full decade. That's long enough for people to really sink their teeth in...and see where the system is lacking. If they can address some of the faults that projects like Level Up are attempting to address, adding _enough_ crunch to deepen the experience _for those who want it_ without compromising the lightness that other fans value, then I could actually see "5.5e" _integrating_ the fanbase, bringing people back together by offering more folks the stuff they want, while taking away little valued by the people who are already happy.

Essentials "splitting" the 4e fanbase is frankly ridiculous, simply because _it was still all 4e_. Nothing in Essentials was in any way a "renovation" of the rules. It was literally just a rules expansion. That would be like saying that Tasha's has _already_ split the 5e fanbase because some of its changes are something not every DM is interested in using.


----------



## LordEntrails

The price _should _go up. It needs to. It called inflation and is a basic concept of economics.

It's why you might get a salary raise each year. And it's why you need one as well. I'm no economist, but arguing against normal inflation is like yelling at a tree for growing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mercurius said:


> I don't follow. Could you re-phrase? What do you mean by "re-print percentage?"



If they incorporate material from previous books, they are essentially re-printing that material.  This is not necessarily great for those who own the previous books.


----------



## Micah Sweet

EzekielRaiden said:


> I don't think it will, mostly because it will have been a longer time. 3.5e came out only three years after 3.0e. This will be a full decade. That's long enough for people to really sink their teeth in...and see where the system is lacking. If they can address some of the faults that projects like Level Up are attempting to address, adding _enough_ crunch to deepen the experience _for those who want it_ without compromising the lightness that other fans value, then I could actually see "5.5e" _integrating_ the fanbase, bringing people back together by offering more folks the stuff they want, while taking away little valued by the people who are already happy.
> 
> Essentials "splitting" the 4e fanbase is frankly ridiculous, simply because _it was still all 4e_. Nothing in Essentials was in any way a "renovation" of the rules. It was literally just a rules expansion. That would be like saying that Tasha's has _already_ split the 5e fanbase because some of its changes are something not every DM is interested in using.



That would be nice, but WotC's policy and design philosophy seems to be going the opposite direction of games like Level Up.  I don't see them adding any crunch.


----------



## Jer

Reynard said:


> Many folks forget or are unaware this is exactly what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition. The Black Border books were reprints with new art and some errata applied, not 2.5.



Yup. And Wizards is in a position where doing that alone could actually work.  I don't think that's all they're going to do, but I think they could and it would be profitable for them if they did.



delericho said:


> Honestly, I'm at a point where just putting in a good index and putting it in good bindings is enough to justify a re-buy.



Yes.  Spending the money on some good indexing of both the PHB and the DMG would actually make it worthwhile to purchase new books for me.  Even a new DMG.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Micah Sweet said:


> That would be nice, but WotC's policy and design philosophy seems to be going the opposite direction of games like Level Up.  I don't see them adding any crunch.



Adding feats to backgrounds certainly seems like an expansion of crunch to me!


----------



## Micah Sweet

LordEntrails said:


> The price _should _go up. It needs to. It called inflation and is a basic concept of economics.
> 
> It's why you might get a salary raise each year. And it's why you need one as well. I'm no economist, but arguing against normal inflation is like yelling at a tree for growing.



You're not wrong, but most folks really don't care why they have to pay more, just the fact if it.  Knowing that it's perfectly understandable doesn't change how much cash leaves your wallet.


----------



## Oofta

Micah Sweet said:


> If you don't like the phrase, I apologize.  But they are charging more for less material than has been the case, so there's something to it.  It has nothing to do with anything but gaming, so I don't quite understand your issue with my terminology, but I withdraw it if you're bothered.




I think the term you're looking for is "inflation".  It's kind of funny how people get stuck on specific price points for some things.  Another good examples is video games - for whatever reason people don't expect to pay much more than $60 for even AAA games, a price point established around a decade or so ago.  If they had kept pace with inflation [after a quick google search for inflation calculator], they'd be around $80.

Everything from wages for the people writing the product to the paper it's printed on to shipping costs have risen.  I'm surprised it isn't higher.


----------



## Micah Sweet

EzekielRaiden said:


> Adding feats to backgrounds certainly seems like an expansion of crunch to me!



Until I see it in a book its no more real than the Strixhaven subclasses.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

All I know is that when the split occurs, I am totally joining the Judean People's Front.

...wait, the People's Front of Judea.

...._well, I am definitely going to pick a side so I can let the other side know that they suck! _


----------



## Micah Sweet

Oofta said:


> I think the term you're looking for is "inflation".  It's kind of funny how people get stuck on specific price points for some things.  Another good examples is video games - for whatever reason people don't expect to pay much more than $60 for even AAA games, a price point established around a decade or so ago.  If they had kept pace with inflation [after a quick google search for inflation calculator], they'd be around $80.
> 
> Everything from wages for the people writing the product to the paper it's printed on to shipping costs have risen.  I'm surprised it isn't higher.



Again, people aren't going to happily pay more for a product just because it makes sense for the price to go up.  I'm talking about actual consumers, not "the market".  Games aren't gasoline; you don't have to buy them to keep living your normal life.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> I mean, I think tons will sell as the big 5-Oh anniversary collectors items alone.



I can't help but appreciate the irony of the intentionally heavily marketed and voluminously produced "collector's editions", beings, as I am, a veteran of the 90s Foil Cover era of comics.


----------



## Jer

Oofta said:


> I think the term you're looking for is "inflation".  It's kind of funny how people get stuck on specific price points for some things.  Another good examples is video games - for whatever reason people don't expect to pay much more than $60 for even AAA games, *a price point established around a decade or so ago*.  If they had kept pace with inflation [after a quick google search for inflation calculator], they'd be around $80



I remember the high end Nintendo games costing $60 in the late 80s.  IIRC the original Legend of Zelda cost $50 retail back in '86 - that would be over $130 in today's money - even if you factor in the material cost for the cartridge, it's still astounding that they can make games and keep that absolute dollar pricepoint.

(I know how they do it - the video game market keeps growing, and they don't treat their employees well overall so they can make it up in volume.  It still is weird to think about.)


----------



## Oofta

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, people aren't going to happily pay more for a product just because it makes sense for the price to go up.  I'm talking about actual consumers, not "the market".  Games aren't gasoline; you don't have to buy them to keep living your normal life.




Nobody _has to_ buy any D&D product.  I don't begrudge them making a reasonable profit.  If I get 6 people together, the hours of entertainment we'll get out of the investment is well worth the cost.  Everyone will, of course, have to make the judgement call for themselves.

If you want to talk about overpriced niche products, the "mini" from WizKids for Demogorgon makes sense.  A new boxed set for $60 just isn't in that category for me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> I remember the high end Nintendo games costing $60 in the late 80s.  IIRC the original Legend of Zelda cost $50 retail back in '86 - that would be over $130 in today's money - even if you factor in the material cost for the cartridge, it's still astounding that they can make games and keep that absolute dollar pricepoint.
> 
> (I know how they do it - the video game market keeps growing, and they don't treat their employees well overall so they can make it up in volume.  It still is weird to think about.)



I think there might be a limit to how much a parent will likely spend for their kid to play one video game...and around $60 is it.


----------



## OB1

I don't see a split happening.  There could be some tables that require building characters using the 2014 PHB, but for the most part, new players will just buy the 2024 PHB, make a character, and then play in a game, whether a homebrew or an existing AP or SG, none the wiser that there is a difference.  Just like most won't really be aware if a DM is using a MToF or VGtM monster or a MotM one now.  And it won't matter since the core ruleset remains the same.  

The one caveat here would be if PHB2024 completely get's rid of Short Rest classes and/or bonus actions (which I don't think they will, even if those rules are de-emphasized in to character builds), but even then, using the specific beats general rule paradigm, older characters should still be compatible with new adventures and settings.


----------



## Reynard

Oofta said:


> Nobody _has to_ buy any D&D product.  I don't begrudge them making a reasonable profit.  If I get 6 people together, the hours of entertainment we'll get out of the investment is well worth the cost.  Everyone will, of course, have to make the judgement call for themselves.
> 
> If you want to talk about overpriced niche products, the "mini" from WizKids for Demogorgon makes sense.  A new boxed set for $60 just isn't in that category for me.



I know everyone has different means and so values their entrtainment dollars differently, but I tend to go with the movie model: if I go see a movie, I get about an hour's entertainment for US$5. If a movie is bad, I am disappointed and if it is good, I am happy. So generally that is how I value entertainment overall. If I buy a video game for $60, I expect to get 12 enjoyable hours out of it. If I buy a console for $600, I expect to get an additional 120 hours out of it (good thing I bought Skyrim, then). Similarly, I expect that a $60 D&D book should bring me 12 hours of enjoyment, between reading it and using it in play. If I buy that book twice because I want to use it on Fantasy grounds (which happens a lot) I expect that much more enjoyment.

By an large, D&D is the best return on investment I have ever seen in entertainment dollars.


----------



## Micah Sweet

OB1 said:


> I don't see a split happening.  There could be some tables that require building characters using the 2014 PHB, but for the most part, new players will just buy the 2024 PHB, make a character, and then play in a game, whether a homebrew or an existing AP or SG, none the wiser that there is a difference.  Just like most won't really be aware if a DM is using a MToF or VGtM monster or a MotM one now.  And it won't matter since the core ruleset remains the same.
> 
> The one caveat here would be if PHB2024 completely get's rid of Short Rest classes and/or bonus actions (which I don't think they will, even if those rules are de-emphasized in to character builds), but even then, using the specific beats general rule paradigm, older characters should still be compatible with new adventures and settings.



Compatibility isn't the issue (I've admitted defeat on that).  You could be fine with the new WotC and still not want to pay to replace your core books, or ask your players to buy new PHs.


----------



## edosan

I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal except for the people that have already decided they hate everything 5e.

(The fact of the matter we don't know anything about what the new book are going to have - Perkins said they're wanting them to by backward compatible and he's know what's going on better than any of us here)


----------



## LordEntrails

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, people aren't going to happily pay more for a product just because it makes sense for the price to go up.  I'm talking about actual consumers, not "the market".  Games aren't gasoline; you don't have to buy them to keep living your normal life.



People will pay more. You and I might not. But people will. 

As proof I will present to you the original price of just $15 USD for the 1st edition AD&D PHB.


----------



## Micah Sweet

edosan said:


> I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal except for the people that have already decided they hate everything 5e.
> 
> (The fact of the matter we don't know anything about what the new book are going to have - Perkins said they're wanting them to by backward compatible and he's know what's going on better than any of us here)



Nah, just a lot if their post-2016 content, and even then its more the philosophy behind it.


----------



## JThursby

Reynard said:


> Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.



I expect a majority of players to move to 5.5, and small but not insignificant minorities that stick with the old rules and those that change games altogether.  If nothing else it will be the time for other publishers to have their work discovered, and many of them deserve more recognition.

I think where ex-5e players are going to go is going to be shaped by how they prefer to engage with the medium.  For me personally, I've only been running 5e as an obligation for a while now.  My game of choice to just have fun has been Pathfinder 2nd Edition.  I can see that game's player base growing a lot during the transition period from 5 to 5.5 with players that like strong character customization and good adventure writing.  The OSR scene is also something to keep an eye on - there is a significant chunk of new players that find the elements of old school jank that 5e has kept to be charming and want more of it.  There's also those that just want collaborative storytelling, so games like Dungeon World should also expected to see a bump in popularity.  Games that don't really cater to anything a typical D&D 5e player wants, like Call of Cthulhu or Shadowrun, I don't really see harvesting that many new players.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> I can't help but appreciate the irony of the intentionally heavily marketed and voluminously produced "collector's editions", beings, as I am, a veteran of the 90s Foil Cover era of comics.



I know right? I just got suckered into the off-world tier of Bladerunner KS for a collectors copy. I never used to buy them because I didnt want to use them and couldn't afford two. Though, now with PDFs, I can get the collector to decorate my shelf.


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> I think there might be a limit to how much a parent will likely spend for their kid to play one video game...and around $60 is it.



Except that $60 back in 1986 was over double what it is today.

It's very weird that it's the absolute dollar amount that is some kind of limit and not the purchasing power of that dollar amount.  $60 today is 4 people going to the movies.  $60 back in 1986 would have paid for around 15 people to go to the movies.  Have parents gotten cheaper about paying for their kids entertainment?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> Except that $60 back in 1986 was over double what it is today.
> 
> It's very weird that it's the absolute dollar amount that is some kind of limit and not the purchasing power of that dollar amount.  $60 today is 4 people going to the movies.  $60 back in 1986 would have paid for around 15 people to go to the movies.  Have parents gotten cheaper about paying for their kids entertainment?



Maybe.  Maybe they just remember how much they were able to get out of their parents for video games.  Or maybe everything else costs more and they have less available for luxuries.


----------



## South by Southwest

Reynard said:


> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.



Bereft as I am of a working crystal ball I cannot lay much on my own predictions here, right? Okay.

My _guess_ is that it won't be so much a split as a lag in people adopting the new books. As folks set in their ways often do, we'll grouse and insist the 5e books are largely fine as they are and didn't need all these changes, but as more and more people take up the new system, most of us crusty old curmudgeons will come around to the new books and settle in to using them. There will, of course, be a few who insist on sticking with the prior system (that always happens, too), but I expect by and large it won't be a big deal.

It isn't fifth edition that so many people have fallen in love with over the past four or five years; it's D&D.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> I agree, in play most people won't care.  The real question is, who is going to throw another $200 at a set of core books that, according to many on this board, offer very little actual change in the game?  I'm not sure i would do that even if I liked the changes.



If it has new art, a lot of people will buy.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> If it has new art, a lot of people will buy.



That is so weird to me.


----------



## Parmandur

South by Southwest said:


> Bereft as I am of a working crystal ball I cannot lay much on my own predictions here, right? Okay.
> 
> My _guess_ is that it won't be so much a split as a lag in people adopting the new books. As folks set in their ways often do, we'll grouse and insist the 5e books are largely fine as they are and didn't need all these changes, but as more and more people take up the new system, most of us crusty old curmudgeons will come around to the new books and settle in to using them. There will, of course, be a few who insist on sticking with the prior system (that always happens, too), but I expect by and large it won't be a big deal.
> 
> It isn't fifth edition that so many people have fallen in love with over the past four or five years; it's D&D.



Yeah, there will be a spectrum of responses, but a dramatic split is not necessary.


----------



## HammerMan

There will be a split.  How big it will be will depend on how much they change.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> That is so weird to me.



I just bought Monsters ofnthe Multiverse despite owning both previous books, and the art is a major factor. Art is a major Contributor to all my RPG book purchases. Notably, Acquisitions Incorporated and Rick & Morty are the only 5E products I skipped, and art is probably the main reason there.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I just bought Monsters ofnthe Multiverse despite owning both previous books, and the art is a major factor. Art is a major Contributor to all my RPG book purchases. Notably, Acquisitions Incorporated and Rick & Morty are the only 5E products I skipped, and art is probably the main reason there.



Huh.  I like art, but it really doesn't factor into my purchasing choices beyond wanting to know what something actually looks like.  Even that is unnecessary if I already know.


----------



## Mercurius

Micah Sweet said:


> If they incorporate material from previous books, they are essentially re-printing that material.  This is not necessarily great for those who own the previous books.



I don't see how it is a problem for those folks. In fact, it is good for them in that it (theoretically) has the updated and complete rules in one book, rather than across multiple supplements, and also benefits those who don't want to buy extra supplements.

Xanathar's expanded on player's options, as did Tasha's, but also had more significant rules additions and adjustments. The 50th PHB would essentially be, "this incorporates the last ten years of 5E development - at least the essentials." That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do after ten years. Again, we're not talking three years here. Ten is a long time, especially for D&D.

I mean, should it _not _do that? No approach is perfect, but incorporating any significant or meaningful changes in the new core rulebooks seems like the best approach to take.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> Idle curiosity about how folks feel. I don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.
> 
> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Also, be nice.
> 
> EDITED for grammar.



No, I don't think it will cause a split


----------



## JAMUMU

If it's handled well enough any split should be minor, but there will always be splitters. Just ask the People's Front of Judea.

When 3.5 came out all the DMs and players I knew upgraded to it. I didn't, and continued to run 3rd ed for ages, but I was definitely an outlier.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Huh.  I like art, but it really doesn't factor into my purchasing choices beyond wanting to know what something actually looks like.  Even that is unnecessary if I already know.



I'm with @Parmandur on this one. Art plays a big part in my purchases as well. As an amateur artist myself, I don't want a book with art that I could easily do myself.


----------



## Mercurius

LordEntrails said:


> People will pay more. You and I might not. But people will.
> 
> As proof I will present to you the original price of just $15 USD for the 1st edition AD&D PHB.




First of all, weren't the original hardcovers 12.95 or less? Anyhow, $15 in 1978 inflates to over $60 today.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> I'm with @Parmandur on this one. Art plays a big part in my purchases as well. As an amateur artist myself, I don't want a book with art that I could easily do myself.



See, I don't do visual art at all, so basically anything does the job for me.  Words mean much more to me than pictures.


----------



## Charlaquin

I mean, as with any rules update there will of course be people who don’t make the switch. But they will be a very small minority of the player base. And frankly, a lot of the people who wouldn’t make the change have _already_ moved on from 5e.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> By an large, D&D is the best return on investment I have ever seen in entertainment dollars.



This is always an interesting argument. 

So, since game books are huge well-springs of entertainment...sometimes literally lasting decades and generations...why do people constantly push for and buy new game books? I mean, I bought a $20 PHB back in 1984 and it's still in good shape. It's perfectly serviceable and the game still plays well enough and I can hack it to my heart's content. So why, since I've already invested in the game, and it's an eternal source of entertainment...why on Earth would I bother buying a newer, more expensive version of the mostly similar game book?


----------



## Parmandur

Jer said:


> Except that $60 back in 1986 was over double what it is today.
> 
> It's very weird that it's the absolute dollar amount that is some kind of limit and not the purchasing power of that dollar amount.  $60 today is 4 people going to the movies.  $60 back in 1986 would have paid for around 15 people to go to the movies.  Have parents gotten cheaper about paying for their kids entertainment?



It's effective competition between the 3 platform holders keeping prices down compared to the days of the _de facto_ Nintendo monopoly.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I don't do visual art at all, so basically anything does the job for me.  Words mean much more to me than pictures.



I'm the same. Especially now with the internet and such easy access to world-class art for free. I can find better and more evocative art than WotC would ever put in a book. So why pay them for art?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Huh.  I like art, but it really doesn't factor into my purchasing choices beyond wanting to know what something actually looks like.  Even that is unnecessary if I already know.



I mean, I have to want to use it, too, but the art is a significant factor with WotC products, due to yhe high quality of art that scratches my sweet spot.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> It's effective competition between the 3 platform holders keeping prices down compared to the days of the _de facto_ Nintendo monopoly.



And competing against unlimited free entertainment, aka the internet.


----------



## Mercurius

Parmandur said:


> If it has new art, a lot of people will buy.






Micah Sweet said:


> That is so weird to me.



It is an aspect of collecting. Meaning, it doesn't make sense from a purely utilitarian point of view, but a _lot _of folks are also collectors.

You can see this in any number of niche areas. I'm into mechanical pencils and fountain pens. In the mechanical pencil world, the Rotring 600 is one of the most iconic pencils - sort of a "gateway drug" to becoming a mechanical pencil aficionado. Not only does it come in a variety of lead types (0.5, 0.7, 2mm, etc), but also many different colors - and some collector's want at least one of each.

As with watches, a cheap $2 mechanical pencil (or $10 quartz watch) will suffice, but that's not what it is about (from a collector's or aficionado's) perspective. There are mechanical pencils that cost hundreds of dollars, and don't even get me started with fountain pens, which also have a luxury/status component.

Not to mention that there's the factor of _aesthetic pleasure _(also, in _kinesthetic pleasure - _the feel of a well-made, cool looking writing instrument in your hand). I bought the Eberron alt cover for $50 at my FLGS not because I'm anti-Amazon (well, I kind of am - but sacrifice my morals for convenience and economics), but because I loved the cover art - to the point that I was willing to spend $20 more on the cover.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I don't do visual art at all, so basically anything does the job for me.  Words mean much more to me than pictures.



I'm a picture is worth a thousand words guy.  To be honest, I pay almost no attention to the writing that is not specifically mechanics anymore. I may skim the lore, etc., but I don't really retain much of it. I use these monsters in my world - not theirs. I don't need, nor want, to be told how I should use them.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> This is always an interesting argument.
> 
> So, since game books are huge well-springs of entertainment...sometimes literally lasting decades and generations...why do people constantly push for and buy new game books? I mean, I bought a $20 PHB back in 1984 and it's still in good shape. It's perfectly serviceable and the game still plays well enough and I can hack it to my heart's content. So why, since I've already invested in the game, and it's an eternal source of entertainment...why on Earth would I bother buying a newer, more expensive version of the mostly similar game book?



New art, new experiences, genuine improvements (Advantage/Disadvantage, proficiency bonus, etc.). But as someone who has gone back and played Editions earlier than I started with...they still work.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> I'm the same. Especially now with the internet and such easy access to world-class art for free. I can find better and more evocative art than WotC would ever put in a book. So why pay them for art?



Because I like it in a nice, physical, non-digital book.


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> I'm the same. Especially now with the internet and such easy access to world-class art for free. I can find better and more evocative art than WotC would ever put in a book. So why pay them for art?



Because you support the artist who make it. It is also nice to have it all in one place. I find a lot of cool art on the web, but to be honest, a lot of the WotC is more to my taste. If I want a black dragon, I want a D&D black dragon. And a lot of the WotC art is really good and evocative too.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> I agree, in play most people won't care.  The real question is, who is going to throw another $200 at a set of core books that, according to many on this board, offer very little actual change in the game?  I'm not sure i would do that even if I liked the changes.



If it compiles all the errata, updates the races to the new presentation, fixes some lingering math issues with certain classes, improves the advice and organization, and includes updated art, lots of folks will. Hell, if it does most of that, plenty of people will. 

I mean tbh I think just a reprint with errata and special new art would sell well enough to be profitable. 

If they also add in the Artificer, Tasha's optional variant class features, and fix some of the worst feats? 

Most groups.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mercurius said:


> It is an aspect of collecting. Meaning, it doesn't make sense from a purely utilitarian point of view, but a _lot _of folks are also collectors.
> 
> You can see this in any number of niche areas. I'm into mechanical pencils and fountain pens. In the mechanical pencil world, the Rotring 600 is one of the most iconic pencils - sort of a "gateway drug" to becoming a mechanical pencil aficionado. Not only does it come in a variety of lead types (0.5, 0.7, 2mm, etc), but also many different colors - and some collector's want at least one of each.
> 
> As with watches, a cheap $2 mechanical pencil (or $10 quartz watch) will suffice, but that's not what it is about (from a collector's or aficionado's) perspective. There are mechanical pencils that cost hundreds of dollars, and don't even get me started with fountain pens, which also have a luxury/status component.
> 
> Not to mention that there's the factor of _aesthetic pleasure _(also, in _kinesthetic pleasure - _the feel of a well-made, cool looking writing instrument in your hand). I bought the Eberron alt cover for $50 at my FLGS not because I'm anti-Amazon (well, I kind of am - but sacrifice my morals for convenience and economics), but because I loved the cover art - to the point that I was willing to spend $20 more on the cover.



I feel that way about other stuff (old books, maps, pocketwatches, just not pictures really.  I don't like having to pay for fancy art I don't really care about, but it is what it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> I'm a picture is worth a thousand words guy.  To be honest, I pay almost no attention to the writing that is not specifically mechanics anymore. I may skim the lore, etc., but I don't really retain much of it. I use these monsters in my world - not theirs. I don't need, nor want, to be told how I should use them.



I entered D&D as a hobby mostly through 2e lore, so I feel pretty much the opposite way.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> New art,



Again, I can find better with a Google search.


Parmandur said:


> new experiences,



Every session is a new experience. No matter what game you're playing. Unless the DM just runs you through an identical session every single time you play.


Parmandur said:


> genuine improvements (Advantage/Disadvantage, proficiency bonus, etc.).



They're debatable. Some think they're improvements, others not so much. From 5E the only improvements I see are dis/advantage and concentration. Both can easily be ported into any edition of D&D.


Parmandur said:


> But as someone who has gone back and played Editions earlier than I started with...they still work.



And they're cheaper. A lot cheaper. Again, RPGs are a well-spring of infinite entertainment, so there's no need to ever buy more books. Yet we do.


Parmandur said:


> Because I like it in a nice, physical, non-digital book.



Sure. And others don't care about that.


----------



## dave2008

Mercurius said:


> I bought the Eberron alt cover for $50 at my FLGS not because I'm anti-Amazon (well, I kind of am - but sacrifice my morals for convenience and economics), but because I loved the cover art - to the point that I was willing to spend $20 more on the cover.



That was the same for me.  I have it on DnD Beyond, but I got the physical alt-cover because I really liked that cover.


----------



## overgeeked

Mercurius said:


> It is an aspect of collecting.



I think this needs to be talked about more. _Playing_ RPGs and _collecting_ RPGs are separate hobbies. There's clearly a lot of overlap, but they're not the same thing. Like playing RPGs and collecting terrain, or collecting terrain and building terrain. There's clear overlap, but they're not the same hobbies.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I entered D&D as a hobby mostly through 2e lore, so I feel pretty much the opposite way.



To clarify, I entered through 1e/BECMI and the lore I mostly still use is based on the 1e MM, MM2, and Deities and Demigods.* So when I was new the lore did matter more to me. However, it has never had much of an impact on my games, but the art does.

*with a bit of 4e thrown in now


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> This is always an interesting argument.
> 
> So, since game books are huge well-springs of entertainment...sometimes literally lasting decades and generations...why do people constantly push for and buy new game books? I mean, I bought a $20 PHB back in 1984 and it's still in good shape. It's perfectly serviceable and the game still plays well enough and I can hack it to my heart's content. So why, since I've already invested in the game, and it's an eternal source of entertainment...why on Earth would I bother buying a newer, more expensive version of the mostly similar game book?



FOMO is real for a lot of people. Also, just because a game is still serviceable and playable doesn't mean you DON'T want to see a new version of it. And for me personally, if I have gotten my money's worth out of one edition and enjoyed it, I feel like chances are the same will be true in the future. And with D&D I have only been wrong once, so...


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Sure. And others don't care about that.



Apparently enough to propel sales.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel that way about other stuff (old books, maps, pocketwatches, just not pictures really.  I don't like having to pay for fancy art I don't really care about, but it is what it is.



I don't really like paying for fancy words I don't care about either, everyone is different.  I could use a D&D that was just technical / mechanical language and art and be fairly happy.


----------



## billd91

Jer said:


> Except that $60 back in 1986 was over double what it is today.
> 
> It's very weird that it's the absolute dollar amount that is some kind of limit and not the purchasing power of that dollar amount.  $60 today is 4 people going to the movies.  $60 back in 1986 would have paid for around 15 people to go to the movies.  Have parents gotten cheaper about paying for their kids entertainment?



As has been mentioned, there are some effects of competition and economies of scale.
But chances are those parents now are carrying a lot more student loan and mortgage debt than their counterparts in 1986.


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> As has been mentioned, there are some effects of competition and economies of scale.
> But chances are those parents now are carrying a lot more student loan and mortgage debt than their counterparts in 1986.



Also the games aren't being bought by those parents, but the kids grown up. My parents haven't bought a video game since the Xbox 360 era, I'm sure.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> FOMO is real for a lot of people. Also, just because a game is still serviceable and playable doesn't mean you DON'T want to see a new version of it. And for me personally, if I have gotten my money's worth out of one edition and enjoyed it, I feel like chances are the same will be true in the future. And with D&D I have only been wrong once, so...



What does FOMO mean?


----------



## aco175

Mercurius said:


> First of all, weren't the original hardcovers 12.95 or less? Anyhow, $15 in 1978 inflates to over $60 today.



Some of the inflation should have been taken away by productivity.  The 1978 computer could not do what we have today.  The internet allows file sharing.  The speed of printing.  A lot of things should make a book cheaper than the inflated cost.  Salaries, art, marketing likely offset most of this though.  I would like to see the old b&w art inside the book though.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> What does FOMO mean?



Fear of Missing Out. It's yhe psychological model used to sell limited edition sneakers and such. Very present in tabletop gaming spaces.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> I don't really like paying for fancy words I don't care about either, everyone is different.  I could use a D&D that was just technical / mechanical language and art and be fairly happy.



I desperately want modules that come ina  slipcase witha  purely technical/utilitarian book separate from the fluffy, arty readable book.


----------



## Parmandur

aco175 said:


> Some of the inflation should have been taken away by productivity.  The 1978 computer could not do what we have today.  The internet allows file sharing.  The speed of printing.  A lot of things should make a book cheaper than the inflated cost.  Salaries, art, marketing likely offset most of this though.  I would like to see the old b&w art inside the book though.



Actually, my understanding is that printing prices have gone up, because of material changes (different kinds of paper are used now) and labor (particularly for publishers like WotC who print in the U.S.A. with vendors who pay American wages).


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I desperately want modules that come ina  slipcase witha  purely technical/utilitarian book separate from the fluffy, arty readable book.



I mean, that might be Spelljammer.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> I desperately want modules that come ina  slipcase witha  purely technical/utilitarian book separate from the fluffy, arty readable book.



That is one reason I am interested in MoM. From what I heard the fluff is removed.  Actually I need to go get that book now that it is separated from the other books.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I mean, that might be Spelljammer.



I don't think so. I expect the adventure book is the usual example of important information buried under heaps of semi-articulate prose.

Never pay by the word for what is essentially a technical manual.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> That is one reason I am interested in MoM. From what I heard the fluff is removed.  Actually I need to go get that book now that it is separated from the other books.



I don't think it is just a book of stat blocks. I think the "fluff" that has been removed is the specific lore sections -- which is not what I am talking about. I am talking about burying the DC for opening the door in the middle of a 300 word paragraph.


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> That is one reason I am interested in MoM. From what I heard the fluff is removed.  Actually I need to go get that book now that it is separated from the other books.



There is still fluff, but no more than the Monster Manual.


----------



## Retreater

To answer the OP, I doubt most players will notice a change. Those of us on these boards who argue small details of the game are atypical players. 5e isn't set up to be a game where people pay attention to the rules.


----------



## OB1

Micah Sweet said:


> Compatibility isn't the issue (I've admitted defeat on that).  You could be fine with the new WotC and still not want to pay to replace your core books, or ask your players to buy new PHs.



Understandable, and I don't think you'll need to replace your old core to continue to play new APs or CSs.  I believe the new core will primarily be for new players and that it will mostly just be an inclusion of some of the Everything splatbook options (with some becoming the new standard) in the case of the PHB and a MotM style rewrite of the original MM.  

I don't think WotC will try to get every existing player to purchase a new PHB (though some will), rather they are going to try to refresh the entry point so that a player doesn't need to purchase 3 or 4 books right from the start.  If you already have the old PHB and the two Everything guides, the only reason you would need to purchase the 2024 PHB would be for ease of reference.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

dave2008 said:


> I'm with @Parmandur on this one. Art plays a big part in my purchases as well. As an amateur artist myself, I don't want a book with art that I could easily do myself.



This.


Mercurius said:


> It is an aspect of collecting. Meaning, it doesn't make sense from a purely utilitarian point of view, but a _lot _of folks are also collectors.
> 
> You can see this in any number of niche areas. I'm into mechanical pencils and fountain pens. In the mechanical pencil world, the Rotring 600 is one of the most iconic pencils - sort of a "gateway drug" to becoming a mechanical pencil aficionado. Not only does it come in a variety of lead types (0.5, 0.7, 2mm, etc), but also many different colors - and some collector's want at least one of each.
> 
> As with watches, a cheap $2 mechanical pencil (or $10 quartz watch) will suffice, but that's not what it is about (from a collector's or aficionado's) perspective. There are mechanical pencils that cost hundreds of dollars, and don't even get me started with fountain pens, which also have a luxury/status component.
> 
> Not to mention that there's the factor of _aesthetic pleasure _(also, in _kinesthetic pleasure - _the feel of a well-made, cool looking writing instrument in your hand). I bought the Eberron alt cover for $50 at my FLGS not because I'm anti-Amazon (well, I kind of am - but sacrifice my morals for convenience and economics), but because I loved the cover art - to the point that I was willing to spend $20 more on the cover.



I love a well made pen. To paraphrase Mitch Hedberg, I lose pens too much. I bought a twenty dollar pen because I always lose pens and i got tired of not caring. 

I mean, not really, I bought a $20 pen because it has a satisfying weight, it writes very smoothly without smearing on the plastic safe drop bags we use at work, doesn't leak, and it fits my preferred aesthetic of dark matte colors along the "cool" side of the color spectrum. Another I got for $10 for work because it has a mini screwdriver built in which I use several times a week to replace the battery in someone's car remote, a touch screen stylus end, and I like the grip and wieght of it. And it came with 3 replacement ink cartridges. 

I'm doing research to get a set of very high quality mechanical pencils and pens for at home. I am very picky about pencils and pens, notebooks, etc. 

I spent around $100 on amythist dice, a handmade dice box that looks like a big book, and a nice little dice holder thing for that dice set. She uses the box and the dice every time we play. Just having it at the table makes her happier. The dice roll well, feel good in the hand, and they're gorgeous. 

One of the best things about not being broke anymore, is being able to actually get the nice versions of my favorite things. 

My best friend wishes that dnd books had less art in them, and I just can't relate. I doubt I'd ever buy physical copies if they weren't full of good art that evokes exactly what the book is talking about. I love the art in MotM. The image for Deep Gnomes is just wonderful. I want to play that exact character now. The art for Duergar? Oh man I'm gonna use them more than I used to do just because of that art.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> This.
> 
> I love a well made pen. To paraphrase Mitch Hedberg, I lose pens too much. I bought a twenty dollar pen because I always lose pens and i got tired of not caring.
> 
> I mean, not really, I bought a $20 pen because it has a satisfying weight, it writes very smoothly without smearing on the plastic safe drop bags we use at work, doesn't leak, and it fits my preferred aesthetic of dark matte colors along the "cool" side of the color spectrum. Another I got for $10 for work because it has a mini screwdriver built in which I use several times a week to replace the battery in someone's car remote, a touch screen stylus end, and I like the grip and wieght of it. And it came with 3 replacement ink cartridges.
> 
> I'm doing research to get a set of very high quality mechanical pencils and pens for at home. I am very picky about pencils and pens, notebooks, etc.
> 
> I spent around $100 on amythist dice, a handmade dice box that looks like a big book, and a nice little dice holder thing for that dice set. She uses the box and the dice every time we play. Just having it at the table makes her happier. The dice roll well, feel good in the hand, and they're gorgeous.
> 
> One of the best things about not being broke anymore, is being able to actually get the nice versions of my favorite things.
> 
> My best friend wishes that dnd books had less art in them, and I just can't relate. I doubt I'd ever buy physical copies if they weren't full of good art that evokes exactly what the book is talking about. I love the art in MotM. The image for Deep Gnomes is just wonderful. I want to play that exact character now. The art for Duergar? Oh man I'm gonna use them more than I used to do just because of that art.



For me, the descriptions of duergar in various editions tells me everything i need to know about them.  Like reading a novel, I can then make my own mental image of what they look like without being limited by art.

The only time art really turned me on to a RPG product was the original Planescape art in 2e.  Tony DiTerlizzi's work was and is amazing.


----------



## Mercurius

Micah Sweet said:


> I feel that way about other stuff (old books, maps, pocketwatches, just not pictures really.  I don't like having to pay for fancy art I don't really care about, but it is what it is.



I hear you - and feel somewhat similarly about Spelljammer, because I'd mostly want it for the setting stuff, and have no interest in the slipcase. So I'd much rather have seen a 256-page + hardcover book.


overgeeked said:


> I think this needs to be talked about more. _Playing_ RPGs and _collecting_ RPGs are separate hobbies. There's clearly a lot of overlap, but they're not the same thing. Like playing RPGs and collecting terrain, or collecting terrain and building terrain. There's clear overlap, but they're not the same hobbies.



Add world-building as an over-lapping hobby unto itself (there exist world-builders who don't player RPGs).

It would make for a good thread, I'd say: the "sub-hobbies of RPGs," although to be fair, some are distinct hobbies in their own right (e.g. worldbuilding, miniature collecting, etc). Hmm, maybe later...


doctorbadwolf said:


> I love a well made pen. To paraphrase Mitch Hedberg, I lose pens too much. I bought a twenty dollar pen because I always lose pens and i got tired of not caring.
> 
> I mean, not really, I bought a $20 pen because it has a satisfying weight, it writes very smoothly without smearing on the plastic safe drop bags we use at work, doesn't leak, and it fits my preferred aesthetic of dark matte colors along the "cool" side of the color spectrum. Another I got for $10 for work because it has a mini screwdriver built in which I use several times a week to replace the battery in someone's car remote, a touch screen stylus end, and I like the grip and wieght of it. And it came with 3 replacement ink cartridges.
> 
> I'm doing research to get a set of very high quality mechanical pencils and pens for at home. I am very picky about pencils and pens, notebooks, etc.



First off, I love Mitch Hedberg (RIP).

Second of all, I know exactly which pen-stylus you're talking about - several companies make it (e.g. Troika). I was looking at that just recently.

But yes, I'm very picky about such things as well, and almost always prefer metal. If you want any suggestions on mechanical pencils, send me a PM - don't want to derail the thread (too much). The reddit page on mechanical pencils is fun to browse, although it likely won't do wonders for your wallet. My favorites that I own are the Kaweco Brass Special and the Caran D'Ache Ecridor. I also love the Kaweco Sketch Up - just a fun chuck of metal.

Another example are notebooks, as you mentioned. I've settled on the Blackwing Slate as my go-to for something I carry around, which is somewhat unfortunate as it is a bit more expensive than average - and far more than the type of cheap notebook you find in drug stores. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> I spent around $100 on amythist dice, a handmade dice box that looks like a big book, and a nice little dice holder thing for that dice set. She uses the box and the dice every time we play. Just having it at the table makes her happier. The dice roll well, feel good in the hand, and they're gorgeous.
> 
> One of the best things about not being broke anymore, is being able to actually get the nice versions of my favorite things.
> 
> My best friend wishes that dnd books had less art in them, and I just can't relate. I doubt I'd ever buy physical copies if they weren't full of good art that evokes exactly what the book is talking about. I love the art in MotM. The image for Deep Gnomes is just wonderful. I want to play that exact character now. The art for Duergar? Oh man I'm gonna use them more than I used to do just because of that art.



I haven't looked at MotM, but I hear you. The aesthetic (and artistic) experience is part of it, which is also why I relate with folks who don't like whatever the latest art trend is. And also why I'm happy when the alt cover of a new D&D book is not to my liking! (e.g. the Spelljammer set), but sucks when I missed out on an alt cover I _do _like, but has since risen in price beyond what I'm willing to pay for (e.g. Tasha's).

I mean, I extend this to other hobbies - I like to collect old 1960s-70s mass market science fiction and fantasy novels, because some of the "New Wave" art is just so fun. In general, when I'm looking for an out-of-print book, I look to see what editions exist so I can get the cover that is most aesthetically pleasing to me.


----------



## LordEntrails

Mercurius said:


> First of all, weren't the original hardcovers 12.95 or less? Anyhow, $15 in 1978 inflates to over $60 today.



Not sure. Google told me $15, but I didn't dive in to verify.


----------



## cbwjm

billd91 said:


> It's not going to be an edition split like 3e/4e. I expect it's going to be more like a 1e UA/non-UA kind of split. Some people aren't going to use the updated racial abilities/monsters in Multiverse because they don't like the changes or because they don't own the resource.



That's probably going to be me. I might get it if there is some sale that makes the book super cheap on dndbeyond, but I'm not likely to buy the book. Having said that, I might manually update the races, what they've done with genasi I kind of like.


----------



## Micah Sweet

cbwjm said:


> That's probably going to be me. I might get it if there is some sale that makes the book super cheap on dndbeyond, but I'm not likely to buy the book. Having said that, I might manually update the races, what they've done with genasi I kind of like.



Yeah, I manually updated all the races I use to Level Up's heritage/culture/background/destiny system.  It works so much better than anything WotC or TSR came up with.


----------



## James Gasik

OB1 said:


> Understandable, and I don't think you'll need to replace your old core to continue to play new APs or CSs.  I believe the new core will primarily be for new players and that it will mostly just be an inclusion of some of the Everything splatbook options (with some becoming the new standard) in the case of the PHB and a MotM style rewrite of the original MM.
> 
> I don't think WotC will try to get every existing player to purchase a new PHB (though some will), rather they are going to try to refresh the entry point so that a player doesn't need to purchase 3 or 4 books right from the start.  If you already have the old PHB and the two Everything guides, the only reason you would need to purchase the 2024 PHB would be for ease of reference.



I don't know though, as a company in the business of making money so they can show profits to their corporate overlords to prove the sustainability of the brand, I would think that yes, WotC definitely wants to sell as many copies of each book as they can.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> For me, the descriptions of duergar in various editions tells me everything i need to know about them.  Like reading a novel, I can then make my own mental image of what they look like without being limited by art.



How about your players? Do you assume you have the same mental image or different mental images? Do desire to reconcile these? Does it matter?


Micah Sweet said:


> The only time art really turned me on to a RPG product was the original Planescape art in 2e.  Tony DiTerlizzi's work was and is amazing.



Yep, I can tell we are coming from different places. I respect Tony's work, but I don't really like his style and it is just not D&D to me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> For me, the descriptions of duergar in various editions tells me everything i need to know about them.  Like reading a novel, I can then make my own mental image of what they look like without being limited by art.
> 
> The only time art really turned me on to a RPG product was the original Planescape art in 2e.  Tony DiTerlizzi's work was and is amazing.



I must admit, the idea of art being limiting in any way to my imagination is wholly alien to me. 

Do you imagine that I see an image I like of a svirfneblin and...can't imagine them any way but how they're depicted in that image?


Mercurius said:


> First off, I love Mitch Hedberg (RIP).



They say that when he passed, he was guided to the divine escalator up to heaven. It had a sign next to it, reading, "Escalator temporarily stairs. We're sorry for the convenience, of you still being able to get up there."


Mercurius said:


> Second of all, I know exactly which pen-stylus you're talking about - several companies make it (e.g. Troika). I was looking at that just recently.



Yep. We sell them at my work, though our price for them sucks. I'm going to get a set of the matte black ones soon.


Mercurius said:


> But yes, I'm very picky about such things as well, and almost always prefer metal. If you want any suggestions on mechanical pencils, send me a PM - don't want to derail the thread (too much). The reddit page on mechanical pencils is fun to browse, although it likely won't do wonders for your wallet. My favorites that I own are the Kaweco Brass Special and the Caran D'Ache Ecridor. I also love the Kaweco Sketch Up - just a fun chuck of metal.



Will do. I've only recently gotten past the point of feeling silly spending 20$ at office depot for a single pen.


Mercurius said:


> Another example are notebooks, as you mentioned. I've settled on the Blackwing Slate as my go-to for something I carry around, which is somewhat unfortunate as it is a bit more expensive than average - and far more than the type of cheap notebook you find in drug stores.



Yeah, I have a small collection of hand-made notebooks that I really like, but I really want to get my hands on something a little more purpose built for taking notes over time. Something with some built in organization. I keep thinking about the idea I had to have pages sectioned off and numbered in the first section of the notebook, with say 3 sections per page, and then corresponding multi-page sections further on. So you've got space for the quick notes like names and such with a section number like 1a, 1b, 1c, and you can expand on a given section in the back where maybe there are no numbers but just a place to write in numbers, all in a framework where you can add pages to a section, and easily go back and forth. So, expanded section 1a can grow as your notes about the necromancer whose cult you're pursueing get more detailed, but finding the notes on the NPC crime lord medusa you met months into the game while a bunch of other stuff was also happening is still easy to find, because you just flip through the reference index in the front. 

I'm sure one of the various modular notebooks out there could be made to do all that, I just haven't found the best one fro the job yet.


Mercurius said:


> I haven't looked at MotM, but I hear you. The aesthetic (and artistic) experience is part of it, which is also why I relate with folks who don't like whatever the latest art trend is. And also why I'm happy when the alt cover of a new D&D book is not to my liking! (e.g. the Spelljammer set), but sucks when I missed out on an alt cover I _do _like, but has since risen in price beyond what I'm willing to pay for (e.g. Tasha's).



Oh yeah, some of the early alt covers are gorgeous but I doubt I'll ever pick them up now. First one I got was Eberron. It broke the seal by just being so damn perfect, on the book i'd been waiting for since 2014, both in terms of fitting the setting, and just fitting my personal aesthetic preferences.


Mercurius said:


> I mean, I extend this to other hobbies - I like to collect old 1960s-70s mass market science fiction and fantasy novels, because some of the "New Wave" art is just so fun. In general, when I'm looking for an out-of-print book, I look to see what editions exist so I can get the cover that is most aesthetically pleasing to me.



Oh yeah, genre fiction related art from the last century is so chock full of incredible gems. I wish more novels had chapter art, tbh. 

One thing I want to do when I publish my game, is to have a mix of gorgeous fantastical art, and hand drawn in-world scribbling like you see in a lot of Stephen King novels. I'll show you the sign of the Crimson King, sure, but the first time you see it is going to be as it was scrawled on the wall of the building where his servants congregate in downtown New York. 

Imagery is just...fundamental to understanding the world, in my experience.


----------



## James Gasik

It might not be D&D, but it's definitely Planescape.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> How about your players? Do you assume you have the same mental image or different mental images? Do desire to reconcile these? Does it matter?
> 
> Yep, I can tell we are coming from different places. I respect Tony's work, but I don't really like his style and it is just not D&D to me.



It doesn't really matter, they can have their own specific image as long as they understand the description and the narration.

As was said above, Tony's work was not really D&D.  But it was Planescape, and I loved it.  Pretty happy with the Monstrous Manual stuff he did too.


----------



## dave2008

Additionally, I like to for a novel, not so much for an RPG. I can


Micah Sweet said:


> It doesn't really matter, they can have their own specific image as long as they understand the description and the narration.



It matters to me. That is a reason we have used minis since 1e. I want everyone to have a similar mental image of what is going on and what they are facing. I don't trust my descriptive abilities to do that, so I rely on art a lot.


Micah Sweet said:


> As was said above, Tony's work was not really D&D.  But it was Planescape, and I loved it.  Pretty happy with the Monstrous Manual stuff he did too.



Some people love him, some don't.  I am one of those that doesn't


----------



## cbwjm

dave2008 said:


> It matters to me. That is a reason we have used minis since 1e. I want everyone to have a similar mental image of what is going on and what they are facing. I don't trust my descriptive abilities to do that, so I really on art a lot.



We'll use theatre of the mind, or whatever we have on hand for minis if it's a complicated battle, but when it comes to describing what the players are up against, nothing works better than me bringing up an image on my laptop and showing it to them, particularly when playing with newer players. I've built up various archives of art for this purpose.


----------



## OB1

James Gasik said:


> I don't know though, as a company in the business of making money so they can show profits to their corporate overlords to prove the sustainability of the brand, I would think that yes, WotC definitely wants to sell as many copies of each book as they can.



Right, but fracturing the player base by having all post PHB2024 content require the new PHB may not be the best way to sustain the brand. In fact, they may net more sales by making it a completely optional purchase.  MotM is currently sitting at #9 in all book sales at Amazon (and #1 Fantasy), even though it is a refresh of the exact same monsters and races in MToF and VGtM.  If a future AP references a monster from MotM, you can still drop in the MToF or VGtM version, or if you have both, choose which one you want.  I think this will be the same model that PHB2024 will use, and it will probably sell massively because of it.


----------



## Mercurius

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh yeah, some of the early alt covers are gorgeous but I doubt I'll ever pick them up now. First one I got was Eberron. It broke the seal by just being so damn perfect, on the book i'd been waiting for since 2014, both in terms of fitting the setting, and just fitting my personal aesthetic preferences.



Yes, agreed! I also love the Mordenkainen's alt cover, Xanathar (too expensive), Tasha's, and Ravenloft, although Eberron is my favorite.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh yeah, genre fiction related art from the last century is so chock full of incredible gems. I wish more novels had chapter art, tbh.
> 
> One thing I want to do when I publish my game, is to have a mix of gorgeous fantastical art, and hand drawn in-world scribbling like you see in a lot of Stephen King novels. I'll show you the sign of the Crimson King, sure, but the first time you see it is going to be as it was scrawled on the wall of the building where his servants congregate in downtown New York.
> 
> Imagery is just...fundamental to understanding the world, in my experience.



Yeah, agreed. What you said about the King novels reminds me of a book from the early 80s, I think, called Dragonworld, that had tons of sketches inside. And of course the Dragonlance books, at least Chronicles, had a drawing at the beginning of each chapter, I believe.


----------



## Mercurius

OB1 said:


> Right, but fracturing the player base by having all post PHB2024 content require the new PHB may not be the best way to sustain the brand. In fact, they may net more sales by making it a completely optional purchase.  MotM is currently sitting at #9 in all book sales at Amazon (and #1 Fantasy), even though it is a refresh of the exact same monsters and races in MToF and VGtM.  If a future AP references a monster from MotM, you can still drop in the MToF or VGtM version, or if you have both, choose which one you want.  I think this will be the same model that PHB2024 will use, and it will probably sell massively because of it.




I just don't think this is true - especially in the era of a new iPhone every year. Now I personally am setting a record, I think, with having the same iPhone 7 for over five years, but most people seems to get a new one every 2-3 years. 

Meaning, good or bad, it is the nature of the consumer treadmill, and I don't see why D&D needs to be any different. And again, we're talking about a 10-year update. What you say may have been true if, say, a "revised edition" came out after a few years, but ten years is a long time. My guess is that most of the new players will be/are excited about it - as the first major update they've experienced. New books! Shiny new covers! Updated rules! Etc.


----------



## Parmandur

Mercurius said:


> I just don't think this is true - especially in the era of a new iPhone every year. Now I personally am setting a record, I think, with having the same iPhone 7 for over five years, but most people seems to get a new one every 2-3 years.
> 
> Meaning, good or bad, it is the nature of the consumer treadmill, and I don't see why D&D needs to be any different. And again, we're talking about a 10-year update. What you say may have been true if, say, a "revised edition" came out after a few years, but ten years is a long time. My guess is that most of the new players will be/are excited about it - as the first major update they've experienced. New books! Shiny new covers! Updated rules! Etc.



Yeah, and they are playing it smart in terms of finding out the pain points with big data, amd catering the design towards that.


----------



## beancounter

No real fracturing. People will continue to play the version they prefer.

It makes sense to have the playable races (species, really) any alignment, but I just don't get the motivation for making demons and devils "typically" evil

The bottom line is that they nerfed the firbolg, and for that I will never forgive them.


----------



## Krachek

If they stick to the « fully compatible  » there won’t be players base split, and what we call 5.5. will be in fact a 5.01 Edition.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

OB1 said:


> Right, but fracturing the player base by having all post PHB2024 content require the new PHB may not be the best way to sustain the brand. In fact, they may net more sales by making it a completely optional purchase.  MotM is currently sitting at #9 in all book sales at Amazon (and #1 Fantasy), even though it is a refresh of the exact same monsters and races in MToF and VGtM.  If a future AP references a monster from MotM, you can still drop in the MToF or VGtM version, or if you have both, choose which one you want.  I think this will be the same model that PHB2024 will use, and it will probably sell massively because of it.



A tacit premise here is that any sort of major change or alteration necessarily results in a bad effect, "fracturing," and no good effects. What about horizontal market segmentation? If they keep the overall rules structures unchanged (e.g., there's no need to edit the AC values or skill check DCs of old adventures because those things haven't changed, only the ways one gets to them), then the new books may end up opening a new market without actually costing the old one. There will always be some folks upset at change solely because it is change. But if future adventure paths work without any need for rewrites on the 5.0 PHB content, then WotC can sustain most or all of their old sales numbers while injecting a new group brought in by adjustments in 5.5e.


----------



## JEB

Yeah, there will be a split - there are already lines being drawn on the increasingly noticeable differences in rules, lore, and general tone since Tasha's. Even as some dismiss the significance of those changes. (Such disagreements themselves represent a burgeoning split...) But it won't kill the game, most 2014 5E players will stay on for 2024, unless they make truly radical changes. I expect something akin to the 1E/2E split, rather than the 3E/4E split (which did eventually put the game's future at risk).

I do expect this may be the end of their years of exponential growth, though, since some folks will surely be staying behind, or at least buying fewer new books. But the game will still grow.

I agree with others here that this may create an opening for more D&D alternatives, as well (but probably not a "5E Pathfinder").


----------



## el-remmen

I just don't think most D&D players are that hardcore that a "split" is an accurate description. While some people will stan for an edition, most people, I think, just negotiate what they want to use from which rules, especially when it comes to iterations within an edition.


----------



## MichaelSomething

More splits! More splits!

I won't rest until every DM has transformed the game into their personal paradise!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I didn't read the whole thread, but there is a big difference between 3.5 and 5.5...

10 years vs 3 years...

After 10 years, you can buy new books.


----------



## Parmandur

UngeheuerLich said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, but there is a big difference between 3.5 and 5.5...
> 
> 10 years vs 3 years...
> 
> After 10 years, you can buy new books.



That's also why they stsrted.openly talking about this in 2021, 3 years early. Anyone who buys in the next few years has access to the information that a new revision is coming, and if they can make it worthwhile with new art and improved organization...well, people who bought relatively recently probably won't begrudge it overall.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

JEB said:


> I do expect this may be the end of their years of exponential growth, though, since some folks will surely be staying behind, or at least buying fewer new books. But the game will still grow.
> 
> I agree with others here that this may create an opening for more D&D alternatives, as well (but probably not a "5E Pathfinder").




The exponential growth will stop anyway, because at some point saturation happens.
This is usually a reason to start a new edition, because you reset to zero and start a new exponential growth.

Thinking exponential growth of a single edition can go on forever is a terrible misunderstanding of how mathematics work.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

The forum dramas over details and revisions will continue as usual. With the amount of money many of us spend on rpg stuff I still guess a majority here will get the new core books, big or small revisions included, and pick what we want for our table. As usual.

What may cause a split though is the tone and style, and target audience, of WotCs published content the coming years - that has already begun. For me, most of the last years releases hasn't really gotten my juices flowing. Since I mostly home-brew I can still play D&D until I die, and I definitely see myself spending less bucks on WotC stuff the coming years.

With that said, when our current campaign wrap up sometime in the fall I will probably run WFRP 4e and the revised The Enemy Within campaign for the next couple of years.


----------



## Yora

I think the game as presented in the 5th edition Player's Handbook has its merits and is something I'm okay with running. But all the Character Option books never called out to me, and what I hear second hand from people discussing that content, they turn the game into something much weirder and nontraditional than I want to run.
If I would even be considered a 5th edition player, I'd been split off from the evolving game just after it was first released.


----------



## humble minion

If it was me doing it (spoiler alert - it's not) I'd present as much as possible of 5.5 as 'options' rather than actual changes.  So when you get a Ranger class feature at level 6, for instance, you'd get to choose from a list, including the original PHB feature, or the Tasha's alternate feature, or whatever.  Give the monk a d10 hit dice and fix some of the more feeble subclasses while you're at it if you must, and I suspect nobody will complain.

Spell changes being back compatible isn't as big a deal as it was back in 3.x, simply because the Concentration limit means that there's fewer module encounters or PC builds that rely on the complicated interaction of seven different stacking buff spells. Will it probably screw over those people who've built some finely optimised Booming Blade Hexblade/Paladin monstrosity or similar?  Well, yeah, inevitably.  When you stretch the rules to the edge case, and the rules change to fix up the edges, you're gonna get cut.  And frankly, that doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

humble minion said:


> If it was me doing it (spoiler alert - it's not) I'd present as much as possible of 5.5 as 'options' rather than actual changes.  So when you get a Ranger class feature at level 6, for instance, you'd get to choose from a list, including the original PHB feature, or the Tasha's alternate feature, or whatever.  Give the monk a d10 hit dice and fix some of the more feeble subclasses while you're at it if you must, and I suspect nobody will complain.
> 
> Spell changes being back compatible isn't as big a deal as it was back in 3.x, simply because the Concentration limit means that there's fewer module encounters or PC builds that rely on the complicated interaction of seven different stacking buff spells. Will it probably screw over those people who've built some finely optimised Booming Blade Hexblade/Paladin monstrosity or similar?  Well, yeah, inevitably.  When you stretch the rules to the edge case, and the rules change to fix up the edges, you're gonna get cut.  And frankly, that doesn't bother me at all.




I don't think, giving too much options is a good Idea for the base game.
But extrapolating from newer release, we will still use dndbeyond in 6e and we will have access to legacy content. So if you atart new, you will likely only see 6e stuff. For those who started before, all options are available.

The new starter set claim to be forward compatible, so I guess we will see 5.25 iterations of a few base races and maybe even classes.


----------



## JEB

UngeheuerLich said:


> But extrapolating from newer release, we will still use dndbeyond in 6e and we will have access to legacy content.



Assuming you bought it before it was removed from sale, that is - VGTM and MTOF are no longer available for purchase, and I assume future books (to include the 2014 core rules) will follow suit over time, as their successors are released.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

JEB said:


> Assuming you bought it before it was removed from sale, that is - VGTM and MTOF are no longer available for purchase, and I assume future books (to include the 2014 core rules) will follow suit over time, as their successors are released.



Otherwise it wouldn't be legacy, would it?


----------



## teitan

A little, for a little while? Maybe? Depends on if the compatibility is 2e to 2e revised or even 3e to 3.5. 

If they go how they went with MotM? probably not. While I am firmly against how they handled that book and  what it is in regards to it being reprint material that PROBABLY should have waited until after the revision came out and thought out better and then pulling Volo's and ToF off of D&D Beyond, essentially stripping the lore out digitally, it's a step forward in design for 5e while also remaining wholly in line with the baseline PHB. If these are the sorts of revisions we can expect in the new books then it won't split the base but 5revised will be a slower burn sell. Meaning it will be a slower, more casual adoption. PHB will sell pretty quick and the DMG and Monster Manual will sell much lower than the current edition because they will be in less remand. This would be on par with a 1e to 2e conversion where essentially not a lot changed and a 1e monster was just fine against 2e characters, there wasn't a lot of shuffling to figure out how to adjust things on the fly in a 1e adventure with 2e characters. That's if they bring the races in line with MotM and the classes in line with Xanathar and Tasha's, which, with the gift set being such a big deal, I don't think those two books and Fizban's are going to be "wiped". I think the PHB stuff will be brought in line to the presentation in those two books and the campaign settings. Nothing from them will be in the PHB except maybe the Artificer with 2 new sub-classes. 

If it is on par with 3e-3.5 it will be a faster adoption. Just enough tweaks to make conversion difficult on the fly but not enough to make people mad and actually address some of the issues in 5e? All three books will be purchased quickly. Pathfinder did the exact same strategy as 3.5, change enough to smooth out some rough spots and 3.5 players adopted it. 

WHat will split the market? Attacking 5e like they did 3.5 as part of their marketing. Changing the core of the game too much. 3e succeeded because the game needed to change while acknowledging its roots and that D&D itself is the genre, not generic fantasy. They streamlined properly, they made it cohesive and easier to explain. 4e struggled in comparison because they attacked a beloved game and changed it from the ground up acting like the older stuff was something to be cherry picked and the rest was for old men in their mother's basements and gnomes were stupid. 

I fully expect it to be more like 1e to 2e where they are largely the same with the tweaks being what we've seen with a couple surprises but nothing major. It's not "broke". The only failure would be if they do what TSR did when they did the revised 2e books and actually made them uglier. This will mean slower sales on the DMG and MM but the PHB will be a hot item and the former 2 will take about a year or so to really show teeth after a big initial sales hit. If they release too many products a year though, sales will fall flat on them. The rapid clip release schedule will short the game's lifepan.


----------



## teitan

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am saying this then going back to lurking so it doesn't start a fight.
> 
> yes it will split, nothing can stop it, we already see it with tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse. there is no way to avoid it.  The question of how bad it is comes down to if you side with the majority or not.



I disagree, it will be adopted but it won't be fast. It will be a steady clip of people moving to it though. People will get over Tasha's and MotM by then and we will have more experience with them. MotM is more how it was handled than anything actually wrong with the material IN the book outside of what was removed from the front of Volo's and ToF.


----------



## CleverNickName

I imagine it will be a split, but nothing like the Great Fracture of 2008.  

I probably won't even notice, because 5th Edition is going to be the "evergreen edition," as far as we're concerned.  Our group is in too deep with 5E at this point to switch to any other edition.  We've spent the last few years acquiring all of the 5E books on Roll20 now, and at no small expense, so it will be a hard "no" for me and my group to start that process all over again.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

CleverNickName said:


> We've spent the last few years acquiring all of the 5E books on Roll20 now, and at no small expense, so it will be a hard "no" for me and my group to start that process all over again.



yeah some people have already double (or tipple) bought these books, when the 'updated' books come out that can cause some friction. 

The split will come down to if you need the new book to play in new games... there were and are people playing every single previous edition because they went back or they jumped off the edition treadmill when that one came out.


----------



## Vaalingrade

If 5.5 is good, I might actually buy 5e for the first time that's not for the Eberron cover variant.


----------



## Shiroiken

Really depends on how much they change. If it's nothing more than what we've seen applied to the core rules, I don't think it's going to be a big deal. With every edition there's some who refuse to switch, and this won't be any different. The biggest split was between 3.5E and 4E, but my group took years before we accepted 2E (although we actually mashed up both AD&D rules to use what we liked). I'm personally hesitant on the new direction, so I'll see how it goes.


----------



## James Gasik

The thing to keep in mind with edition updates and changes is, they may not be designed with you and your table in mind.  You may be running the game just fine, while some guy a state over is constantly killing his party while properly using the encounter building system, because he doesn't understand when/how/why to allow, say, short rests.

While another wonders why the game is so easy because players short rest whenever they care to.

This seems to be something 5.25, 25e, Super Ultra Deluxe Special Edition Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Exclusive, or whatever they choose to call the next iteration is leading towards.  Standardization so people can't mess this up.

Your game might be one where you think some races being better (or even worse) at certain traits than others is perfectly acceptable and you never really questioned why female Drow are actually shoddy Clerics.

But in pursuit of the almighty dollar, WotC responds to what they thing the largest segments of their fanbase wants- and the rest of us are along for the ride.

Same as it ever was.

So to riot about it seems a bit much, as long as they don't take the game you are playing away.

They did that when I was playing 4e, and I'm still a bit sore about it, but it's not like the current iteration of 5e only exists on the internet so we do what we always do.  Take what we want, and ignore the rest.

I mean look at 2e.  Did every table use every book?  Hell no! Did the existence of Players Option: Skills & Powers mean you had to add all these tweaks to your game?  Certainly not!

The player base has always been fractured, because we all play differently.  There is no "enforced standard of play" for all tables.  And if you play in AL and don't like the changes, time to start up a home game!

This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Reynard said:


> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.



Just as with 4E and 3.XE, there will be no meaningful split.

Most people will just slowly change over.

Some people will be very eager to show how they've adopted the new edition.

A tiny number of people will be weird hold-outs or say they are, and like, if you check back in a year or three they will probably not be hold-outs anymore.


----------



## payn

Ruin Explorer said:


> Just as with 4E and 3.XE, there will be no meaningful split.
> 
> Most people will just slowly change over.
> 
> Some people will be very eager to show how they've adopted the new edition.
> 
> A tiny number of people will be weird hold-outs or say they are, and like, if you check back in a year or three they will probably not be hold-outs anymore.



Right, maybe like the 3E holdouts that never moved beyond to 3.5/4E/5E. It doesn't seem like it should be a thing, but there are a number of folks out there.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

payn said:


> Right, maybe like the 3E holdouts that never moved beyond to 3.5/4E/5E. It doesn't seem like it should be a thing, but there are a number of folks out there.



I tend to imagine them as like those poor Japanese soldiers who never found out WW2 was over.


----------



## ersatzphil

Ruin Explorer said:


> I tend to imagine them as like those poor Japanese soldiers who never found out WW2 was over.



Eh, my group stayed with 3e for awhile, and graduated to White Wolf and WEG’s Star Wars instead of 3.5. I didn’t come back to D&D until several years into 5e.


----------



## Smackpixi

Level Up is both really different and “fully compatible”.  I really suspect anything WotC does will be less of a departure, but way more people will freak out about it.  Narcissism of minor differences will run rampant on the internet, most people will acquire the new books at a pace matching their curiosity, eagerness for new exploits, love of picture books, and FoMO.  Objectively none of the changes will actually matter, some will be convenient, some providing clarity, some satisfying common decency.  The sun will revolve around the earth again and some people who have repeatedly asserted they are done with DND will say so again.  

Aside from that pointless post, and new monster art, I hope and think the biggest and most interesting and most useful changes will be in the DMG.  So much improvement and change and value and clarification could be added there while being fully compatible, entirely new optional rules (aren’t all rules optional outside AL?) can be done while being fully compatible…people will freak out and it will be fun to watch.


----------



## Li Shenron

Mercurius said:


> Presumably they'll incorporate two more, Xanathar's and Tasha's, into the 50th anniversary PHB.



I agree with your general prediction but this is not gonna happen because of simple space reason. 

What can happen, is that they incorporate a few selected changes: customised racial ability bonuses and those free class boosts from Tasha, and maybe Beastmaster alternate pets. I don't think they have room for extra subclasses or feats.


----------



## Parmandur

Li Shenron said:


> I agree with your general prediction but this is not gonna happen because of simple space reason.
> 
> What can happen, is that they incorporate a few selected changes: customised racial ability bonuses and those free class boosts from Tasha, and maybe Beastmaster alternate pets. I don't think they have room for extra subclasses or feats.



I don't know that we can assume too much one way or another about the "next evolution" of the game. WotC might not know exactly what it will look like yet: it's over 2 years off, and their normal product turnaround is 13 months. They might do a gigantic Rules Cyclopedia, they might do another triple core set like AD&D, they might do a BECMI series of box sets. Who knows at this point?


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I don't know that we can assume too much one way or another about the "next evolution" of the game. WotC might not know exactly what it will look like yet: it's over 2 years off, and their normal product turnaround is 13 months. They might do a gigantic Rules Cyclopedia, they might do another triple core set like AD&D, they might do a BECMI series of box sets. Who knows at this point?



A giant slipcase of three separate 3-book slipcases!


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> A giant slipcase of three separate 3-book slipcases!



I mean, why not??


----------



## teitan

Mercurius said:


> I realize my post above (#37) diverged a bit from what the OP is asking, but I think it is relevant. But to take one element from that, and to respond more directly to the OP, I think a lot depends upon how the "Stranger Babies" respond to this change. The old-timers who are still around have gone through this before, some several times. But what we don't know is how the new player base will respond to changes in a game that, for them, has not yet changed.
> 
> And of course a lot of their response depends upon how much the game changes, and in what ways. But I think WotC is very aware of this, and will try bring the game only up to the edge of what they think won't rock the boat too much.
> 
> Another fact that seems barely mentioned, but I think is huge: 5E is quite different from past editions in that there are minimal splats. Most of what is published are adventures and settings, and those sorts of products are more "update resistant" than splats. We've already seen WotC's planned approach: they folded two older splats (Volo's and Mordenkainen's) into one new book. Presumably they'll incorporate two more, Xanathar's and Tasha's, into the 50th anniversary PHB.
> 
> Meaning, they aren't going to have to re-publish everything - just the core rules, and then move on from there. They could even do a 5.5 and the uproar will be (or should be) less than in past editions, because there is less to update, and most of it can be updated within the core rulebooks.
> 
> So my prediction is that it will be more seamless a transition to the 50th anniversary because of the nature of the 5E product line: heavy on adventures and settings, relatively light on splats.



I don’t think they will integrate Tasha’s and Xanathar’s. I think they will remain as is and compatible and that’s why they are in the gift set with what is essentially the Monster Manual 2 for 5e. They wouldn’t heavily revise those two books and reprint them and then bundle them like that. Plus from indications the class structures in those two are essentially the class structure of Revised. No short rest abilities etc. they are promising compatibility with existing material. If the artificer is moved to core it will have two different subclasses instead of the Tasha classes for example. They’ll add new subclasses to each class and slight revision to the core classes already in there. The races will default to MotM format with the original as a “suggested quick build”.


----------



## Greg Benage

For me, I really think it will depend on digital implementation. I'm perfectly happy to pick and choose the bits I like from different editions -- that would be the most "old school" element of 5e to date. But I play almost exclusively on Roll20 now, and I pay for that digital implementation. Currently, I can ignore the new design directions I don't care for and skip some books completely, and that works just fine. 

OTOH, if I can't load 5.5 up in Roll20 and get (for example) racial ASIs in the character builder, I'm just not going to buy it on Roll20 and I'll keep running 5e. I expect that will be the case. Still, I hope I'm wrong because I'm sure there will be new stuff I _do_ like and that would be clunky to import without digital support.


----------



## Jack Daniel

GMforPowergamers said:


> there were and are people playing every single previous edition because they went back or they jumped off the edition treadmill when that one came out.




I have to say, it is _mighty_ nice to be off the treadmill. I find the solid ground to be quite pleasant, especially where there's grass.



Parmandur said:


> They might do a gigantic Rules Cyclopedia, they might do another triple core set like AD&D, they might do a BECMI series of box sets. Who knows at this point?




I know. And so do you, and so does everyone else. There is no conceivable world where WotC abandons the PHB/DMG/MM model. It's tradition, it's nostalgia, it's revenue.


----------



## Parmandur

Egon Spengler said:


> I have to say, it is _mighty_ nice to be off the treadmill. I find the solid ground to be quite pleasant, especially where there's grass.
> 
> 
> 
> I know. And so do you, and so does everyone else. There is no conceivable world where WotC abandons the PHB/DMG/MM model. It's tradition, it's nostalgia, it's revenue.



Sure, there is, they've openly talked about that as a possibility. And if the future is a huge "Rules Cyclopedia" supported by digital Monstrous Compendiums...well, they won't have forced anyone to re-purchase a PHB or DMG.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

teitan said:


> I disagree, it will be adopted but it won't be fast. It will be a steady clip of people moving to it though. People will get over Tasha's and MotM by then and we will have more experience with them. MotM is more how it was handled than anything actually wrong with the material IN the book outside of what was removed from the front of Volo's and ToF.



Yeah if it's as compatible as they say they want it to be, the adoption won't be that quick, but there won't be much necessity.

You're get a few million neophiles immediately adopting it, and from then on it'll be a slow transition, as with 1E > 2E and 3E > 3.5E.

Ironically the less compatible it is, the faster the transition will be.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> Sure, there is, they've openly talked about that as a possibility. And if the future is a huge "Rules Cyclopedia" supported by digital Monstrous Compendiums...well, they won't have forced anyone to re-purchase a PHB or DMG.



That's an interesting possibility.

If they essentially went to a model more like 4E's DDI, just a lot better executed, i.e. "subscribe and you get all the rules/classes/races/items/monsters etc." (but not the text/images of all the books), well, I'd subscribe. For sure. For more money than Beyond was taking off me back when I was subbed to that. That model in 4E was incredibly attractive and effective for our group. And great for me as a DM, especially as they had a wonderful monster-building tool, where you could get it to automatically put right values in stuff, or just grab features from one monster and put them on another.

That would also likely speed the transition considerably for a lot of groups, thought it might cause a starker digital/non-digital divide. If so that split might be the split more than 5E vs 5.5E/6E.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> That's an interesting possibility.
> 
> If they essentially went to a model more like 4E's DDI, just a lot better executed, i.e. "subscribe and you get all the rules/classes/races/items/monsters etc." (but not the text/images of all the books), well, I'd subscribe. For sure. For more money than Beyond was taking off me back when I was subbed to that.
> 
> That would also likely speed the transition considerably for a lot of groups, thought it might cause a starker digital/non-digital divide.



When they were floating that weird model for a digital solution, they were talking about making all of the rules free, and selling aesthetics as a monetary model .


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> When they were floating that weird model for a digital solution, they were talking about making all of the rules free, and selling aesthetics as a monetary model .



Interesting. I doubt they'll do that in the end though, as Beyond has already shown (if I understand correctly) that cosmetics/aesthetics don't sell great.


----------



## Maxperson

MichaelSomething said:


> More splits! More splits!


----------



## Scott Christian

The only thing that will split are groups that are already split. One table that runs gritty, and had someone leave, or another that runs Rick & Morty, and had someone leave. It's always happened. This will cause no more than the norm.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Interesting. I doubt they'll do that in the end though, as Beyond has already shown (if I understand correctly) that cosmetics/aesthetics don't sell great.



This was in regards to a VTT, as per the proposal.it may just turn out something like that, because WotC business model is to get people to play...so that they buy licensed merchandise and go to movies, etc. Selling rules is a side gig to that.


----------



## teitan

Parmandur said:


> Sure, there is, they've openly talked about that as a possibility. And if the future is a huge "Rules Cyclopedia" supported by digital Monstrous Compendiums...well, they won't have forced anyone to re-purchase a PHB or DMG.



Ew gross. I hated the Monstrous Compendium model.


----------



## teitan

If it splits you will see an uptick in Pathfinder2e. I already sense an uptick on Pathfinder2e coming anyway now that the full potential of the system is on display.


----------



## James Gasik

I would think for WotC, the best way to go moving forward isn't to officially "end" 5e and announce 6e any time soon, but to keep making refinements to the engine they have until there's a compelling reason to change it.

They'll adjust things based on player feedback, like the whole debacle about making species less specialized (not going to use the "r" word here, it's too loaded) and to change lore to eliminate "bad guy humanoids".

Every so many years, if the core books start looking out of date, update them, but avoid constant errata so you don't end up with dead books sitting on distributor shelves.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Parmandur said:


> This was in regards to a VTT, as per the proposal.it may just turn out something like that, because WotC business model is to get people to play...so that they buy licensed merchandise and go to movies, etc. Selling rules is a side gig to that.



I wonder if that last bit is true though.

WotC have becoming extremely profitable, and D&D's success is a big part of that, but whilst D&D has some merchandise from WotC it certainly seems like the the current main profit-driver is rules/books sales. That might not continue indefinitely, and I've talked before about how D&D seems to be in the process of ceasing to be an RPG, and becoming a sort of "lifestyle" brand which is merely linked to an RPG. But even then, it seems likely they'd want to sell stuff beyond the basics, though whether on a per-book basis or a subscribe-to-get-all basis I don't know (it looks like the latter model is increasing in popularity, c.f. the expansion of Gamepass by Microsoft for example).

I mean, even Disney, who people have suggested makes most of its money from merchandise and parks, doesn't, actually - it makes about 1/3rd of it from that, the rest being from TV/movies (via various networks), except for 11% which is from licencing. I feel like WotC are kind of moving towards that model, but a subscription model, certainly to go beyond the basics, seems more likely than a pure F2P one with cosmetics.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> That's also why they stsrted.openly talking about this in 2021, 3 years early. Anyone who buys in the next few years has access to the information that a new revision is coming, and if they can make it worthwhile with new art and improved organization...well, people who bought relatively recently probably won't begrudge it overall.



See, new art and improved organization don't make it worthwhile to me, and that's on top of me mostly not liking the changes they're planning to make anyway.


----------



## Micah Sweet

humble minion said:


> If it was me doing it (spoiler alert - it's not) I'd present as much as possible of 5.5 as 'options' rather than actual changes.  So when you get a Ranger class feature at level 6, for instance, you'd get to choose from a list, including the original PHB feature, or the Tasha's alternate feature, or whatever.  Give the monk a d10 hit dice and fix some of the more feeble subclasses while you're at it if you must, and I suspect nobody will complain.
> 
> Spell changes being back compatible isn't as big a deal as it was back in 3.x, simply because the Concentration limit means that there's fewer module encounters or PC builds that rely on the complicated interaction of seven different stacking buff spells. Will it probably screw over those people who've built some finely optimised Booming Blade Hexblade/Paladin monstrosity or similar?  Well, yeah, inevitably.  When you stretch the rules to the edge case, and the rules change to fix up the edges, you're gonna get cut.  And frankly, that doesn't bother me at all.



Class design in Level Up basically works the way you describe.


----------



## Micah Sweet

teitan said:


> I disagree, it will be adopted but it won't be fast. It will be a steady clip of people moving to it though. People will get over Tasha's and MotM by then and we will have more experience with them. MotM is more how it was handled than anything actually wrong with the material IN the book outside of what was removed from the front of Volo's and ToF.



Unless you don't like how they changed the monsters (particularly spellcasting ones), or removed cultural content from the race rules altogether in favor of a "make up the fluff you want, you don't need mechanics" approach to it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> I tend to imagine them as like those poor Japanese soldiers who never found out WW2 was over.



This whole line of reasoning seems condescending to anyone who doesn't care for the current and upcoming revisions.  "You'll fall in line eventually" is dismissive.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> This whole line of reasoning seems condescending to anyone who doesn't care for the current and upcoming revisions.  "You'll fall in line eventually" is dismissive.



So, they should just stop what they are doing and cater to you?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> This whole line of reasoning seems condescending to anyone who doesn't care for the current and upcoming revisions.  "You'll fall in line eventually" is dismissive.



Mistaking a cheap joke for a "line of reasoning" suggests to me you might be looking for opportunities to be a victim, personally. YMMV.

If you just misquoted, then the question is, what should happen, should WotC support all editions forever? That doesn't seem entirely practical.


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> So, they should just stop what they are doing and cater to you?



Of course not (though that would be nice).  I'm not saying WotC is dismissive, I'm saying posters who assume that anyone who doesn't like where things are going will eventually go along with it anyway are being dismissive.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> So, they should just stop what they are doing and cater to you?



That's not what they are saying. They are saying that it is dismissive to assume there won't be a split because people will just accept whatever WotC does. It is a dismissive attitude, and could well be wrong, too. We will have to wait and see.

What I think could happen is that this "rebuy all your books" move could inspire a lot of people that came to the hobby with 5E to jump ship to other games that do what they want better. It happened in the early 90s and could well happen again.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Mistaking a cheap joke for a "line of reasoning" suggests to me you might be looking for opportunities to be a victim, personally. YMMV.
> 
> If you just misquoted, then the question is, what should happen, should WotC support all editions forever? That doesn't seem entirely practical.



It didn't sound like a joke to me.  My mistake.


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> Of course not (though that would be nice).  I'm not saying WotC is dismissive, I'm saying posters who assume that anyone who doesn't like where things are going will eventually go along with it anyway are being dismissive.





Reynard said:


> That's not what they are saying. They are saying that it is dismissive to assume there won't be a split because people will just accept whatever WotC does. It is a dismissive attitude, and could well be wrong, too. We will have to wait and see.
> 
> What I think could happen is that this "rebuy all your books" move could inspire a lot of people that came to the hobby with 5E to jump ship to other games that do what they want better. It happened in the early 90s and could well happen again.



What is the answer? I mean, if they cant do revisions and updates after a decade when can they?


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> What is the answer? I mean, if they cant do revisions and updates after a decade when can they?



It isn't that they can't, it is that they should expect some attrition. They should also, hopefully, elicit feedback and if enough people feel a certain way, adjust their design. I think it is pretty common a reasonable for people to feel a little put out when they realize the thing they have loved is changing in a way that makes it not that thing anymore. it doesn't mean that person is demanding anything. It's just an expression of grief or frustration or disappointment.


----------



## billd91

payn said:


> What is the answer? I mean, if they cant do revisions and updates after a decade when can they?



There is no single answer. Sure, they can revise whatever they want, whenever they want. But people who don't like the changes can make their own decisions based on that content. Maybe they'll update, maybe they won't, maybe they'll shift to something else if the game moves in directions they don't like. This is the way it has always been and will always be - with respect to RPG editions. WotC just has to decide what risks they're willing to assume.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> It isn't that they can't, it is that they should expect some attrition. They should also, hopefully, elicit feedback and if enough people feel a certain way, adjust their design. I think it is pretty common a reasonable for people to feel a little put out when they realize the thing they have loved is changing in a way that makes it not that thing anymore. it doesn't mean that person is demanding anything. It's just an expression of grief or frustration or disappointment.



I know there have been some conscientious updates in the past, I just think this overblown. If WOTC announces that 5E is cancelled and that they are releasing 4.5E, then I could see the call for alarm, but really I agree with the sentiment that its a risk worth taking after a decade. Gotta move on at some point.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> I know there have been some conscientious updates in the past, I just think this overblown. If WOTC announces that 5E is cancelled and that they are releasing 4.5E, then I could see the call for alarm, but really I agree with the sentiment that its a risk worth taking after a decade. Gotta move on at some point.



That sentiment about "moving on" is so strange and such a RPG specific attitude. I wonder why people think it's time to move on for a given iteration of D&D when clearly many people still play previous versions. Who is asking for a new edition?


----------



## Micah Sweet

payn said:


> I know there have been some conscientious updates in the past, I just think this overblown. If WOTC announces that 5E is cancelled and that they are releasing 4.5E, then I could see the call for alarm, but really I agree with the sentiment that its a risk worth taking after a decade. Gotta move on at some point.



It's fine to like the direction things are going in, but that doesn't mean you can tell people that feel differently that they shouldn't or that their concerns are irrelevant.  I like the game we had.  It was easy to hack into what I wanted.  The more stuff they release lately and the more they announce they intend to release, the harder that becomes for me.

I'm just glad the game lasted long enough for some great people to design Level Up in response to it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> That sentiment about "moving on" is so strange and such a RPG specific attitude. I wonder why people think it's time to move on for a given iteration of D&D when clearly many people still play previous versions. Who is asking for a new edition?



Excellent point.  Who is actually asking for a new edition, aside from WotC shareholders?


----------



## payn

Micah Sweet said:


> It's fine to like the direction things are going in, but that doesn't mean you can tell people that feel differently that they shouldn't or that their concerns are irrelevant.  I like the game we had.  It was easy to hack into what I wanted.  The more stuff they release lately and the more they announce they intend to release, the harder that becomes for me.
> 
> I'm just glad the game lasted long enough for some great people to design Level Up in response to it.



I didnt like the direction of 4E, couldn't do nothing about it. I didn't like the direction of PF2, couldn't do nothing about it. All you can do is say I dont want that but ultimately the producers will do what they want. 

Now, as has been said, I can take my business elsewhere. Its my only option just like you.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> That sentiment about "moving on" is so strange and such a RPG specific attitude. I wonder why people think it's time to move on for a given iteration of D&D when clearly many people still play previous versions. Who is asking for a new edition?



I am. 5E is an ok base, but Id like to see it expanded. If you still play your favorite why does a new edition effect you?


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> I didnt like the direction of 4E, couldn't do nothing about it. I didn't like the direction of PF2, couldn't do nothing about it. All you can do is say I dont want that but ultimately the producers will do what they want.
> 
> Now, as has been said, I can take my business elsewhere. Its my only option just like you.



It isn't your only option. We are lucky than these days we can communicate with those making the game and let them know how we feel. Individually it isn't much but collectively it is something.


----------



## the Jester

I'm hoping that the anniversary stuff will be presented like Essentials, i.e. "this overlaps with but is different from the legacy 5e material and you can play them together", instead of the 3.0 to 3.5 change, where it was more "this replaces and changes enough of the game that you really can't play 3.0 and 3.5 together without having a lot of wonkiness".  

If the change is akin to 4e to Essentials, I think the split will be much smaller than if it's more like the 3.5e revision, but a split to some degree is probably inevitable.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> It isn't your only option. We are lucky than these days we can communicate with those making the game and let them know how we feel. Individually it isn't much but collectively it is something.



Sure, I fill out surveys and do playtests. My experience in that says I have very little chance of effecting anything. Though, I voice my opinion and move on when its not popular. It's all I can do. WOTC doesnt owe me anything.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> I am. 5E is an ok base, but Id like to see it expanded. If you still play your favorite why does a new edition effect you?



It doesn't, but I'm not worried about it either because I already got everything I want out of 5e. I am moderately interested in what they do but it doesn't appear they are evolving the game in a direction that is going to make it more appealing to me, but them's the breaks.

My interest in whether 5.5 or whatever it's called splits the player base is more academic.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> My interest in whether 5.5 or whatever it's called splits the player base is more academic.



Right. I'm just one guy who thinks it will be entirely unnoticeable (outside EN world anyways). Perhaps dismissive, but its a simple opinion.


----------



## Reynard

payn said:


> Right. I'm just one guy who thinks it will be entirely unnoticeable (outside EN world anyways). Perhaps dismissive, but its a simple opinion.



I don't that opinion was the part folks felt was dismissive, but rather the idea that people will just fall into line could be construed as dismissive. But I don't think your intent was to be hurtful or anything.


----------



## James Gasik

Reynard said:


> That sentiment about "moving on" is so strange and such a RPG specific attitude. I wonder why people think it's time to move on for a given iteration of D&D when clearly many people still play previous versions. Who is asking for a new edition?



Hasbro.


----------



## payn

Reynard said:


> I don't that opinion was the part folks felt was dismissive, but rather the idea that people will just fall into line could be construed as dismissive. But I don't think your intent was to be hurtful or anything.



Yeap. One thing I'm not dismissive of is the feeling. I have gone through a game drifting away from tastes several times now. It is not enjoyable. There was a time I had an outsized value of my opinion, but now I understand better how things work. I can only do so much about it.


----------



## billd91

payn said:


> I am. 5E is an ok base, but Id like to see it expanded. If you still play your favorite why does a new edition effect you?



Why does a new edition affect people who aren't going to continue with it? It means that the edition they prefer gets less and less support and is harder to find players for. Same as always. That's why lots of people who are content with the current edition tend to be wary of new editions with significant changes. 
Changes that are less significant or more evolutionary tend to allow a lot more compatibility and so are easier to absorb or adapt. That's one reason I'm not too worried about any new changes coming along. If I don't like them, I'll adapt (treating some of these non-spell magical attacks as spells being a potential house rule). Though I may have to rethink my AL DMing at Gamehole Con if I don't keep up with the changes and that'll be kind of sad since they need the DMs badly.


----------



## payn

billd91 said:


> Why does a new edition affect people who aren't going to continue with it? It means that the edition they prefer gets less and less support and is harder to find players for. Same as always. That's why lots of people who are content with the current edition tend to be wary of new editions with significant changes.
> Changes that are less significant or more evolutionary tend to allow a lot more compatibility and so are easier to absorb or adapt. That's one reason I'm not too worried about any new changes coming along. If I don't like them, I'll adapt (treating some of these non-spell magical attacks as spells being a potential house rule). Though I may have to rethink my AL DMing at Gamehole Con if I don't keep up with the changes and that'll be kind of sad since they need the DMs badly.



Its a good point and why these updates/changes to editions are so contentious. The alternative choices are slim at best. I'll do something I am loathe to do and quote Don Henley. "_You can check out anytime you like; but you may never leave_"


----------



## James Gasik

If a new edition is made and it is significantly less compatible than the old one, that's when you get problems.  If the company has stopped making product for it, you're left either hoping a 3rd party company makes stuff for it, or have to homebrew or figure out how to adapt content from here on out.  You in effect, have a dead game.

Whatever changes happen to 5e are not going to be so severe. We're talking 1e/2e or 3.0/3.5 at worst.


----------



## Yora

The company has a dead game.

The thing with RPGs is, they are not content. They are tools.


----------



## Campbell

teitan said:


> If it splits you will see an uptick in Pathfinder2e. I already sense an uptick on Pathfinder2e coming anyway now that the full potential of the system is on display.




I doubt it. Those who feel disenfranchised are unlikely to find much solace in Pathfinder Second Edition. When it comes to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries to be able to work well for pretty much any class Pathfinder Second Edition and 5e are following similar trendlines. I happen to prefer Paizo's solutions to those design problems, but I do not think most of the people who feel 5e is going in a different direction then they would like are going to find Paizo more receptive to their desires.


----------



## Reynard

Yora said:


> The company has a dead game.



Does it?


----------



## Reynard

Campbell said:


> I doubt it. Those who feel disenfranchised are unlikely to find much solace in Pathfinder Second Edition. When it comes to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries to be able to work well for pretty much any class Pathfinder Second Edition and 5e are following similar trendlines. I happen to prefer Paizo's solutions to those design problems, but I do not think most of the people who feel 5e is going in a different direction then they would like are going to find Paizo more receptive to their desires.



Why do you think those are the primary issues, as opposed to the way 5E appears to be flattening monsters even more and other changes?


----------



## payn

Campbell said:


> I doubt it. Those who feel disenfranchised are unlikely to find much solace in Pathfinder Second Edition. When it comes to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries to be able to work well for pretty much any class Pathfinder Second Edition and 5e are following similar trendlines. I happen to prefer Paizo's solutions to those design problems, but I do not think most of the people who feel 5e is going in a different direction then they would like are going to find Paizo more receptive to their desires.



I agree, though I think an interest may arise because of the differences. Many folks are just getting started with 5E. After nearly a decade, they might be ready to try something different.


----------



## Yora

Reynard said:


> Does it?



Well, if it does not produce any goods to sell, that's pretty dead to me.
Even if they continue to sell of remaining stock for a while.


----------



## Reynard

Yora said:


> Well, if it does not produce any goods to sell, that's pretty dead to me.
> Even if they continue to sell of remaining stock for a while.



But is that the case with 5E?


----------



## James Gasik

For awhile it seemed that way, but it looks like they're about to pick up the pace on releases.  When you have few books coming out every year, you need to make sure more new people are getting on board constantly.

It may be that they now think they have everyone they're going to get, so it's time to start dropping content like mad.  Hence all the discussion about more campaign settings.

Nobody is going to be forced to grab every setting, so you might avoid "book glut" that way.  And of course, the settings that sell the most will get the most books.


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> For awhile it seemed that way, but it looks like they're about to pick up the pace on releases.  When you have few books coming out every year, you need to make sure more new people are getting on board constantly.
> 
> It may be that they now think they have everyone they're going to get, so it's time to start dropping content like mad.  Hence all the discussion about more campaign settings.
> 
> Nobody is going to be forced to grab every setting, so you might avoid "book glut" that way.  And of course, the settings that sell the most will get the most books.



Nothing I have read anywhere has suggested 5E is nearing a life cycle end, which probably amounts mostly to a strong suggestion that the Anniversary Edition books are not going to mark a particularly serious shift. For me, that is more encouragement to transition over to LevelUp or even over to PF2, but for others it is going to alleviate some of that edition change stress we were talking about.


----------



## James Gasik

Not a life cycle end, more like a shift in how it develops from this point on?


----------



## Reynard

James Gasik said:


> Not a life cycle end, more like a shift in how it develops from this point on?



Probably. One thing I do think is in the offing, though, is that there is an opportunity for a Zeelennial friendly game to appear and gather a strong user base. This space is pretty old at this point, and watching reddit and other, younger spaces shows a hunger for some things no iteration of D&D is likely to provide and still be called D&D: GM-less, prep-less play with a strong focus on permissive storytelling and freedom of choice. Someone is going to find the right combo and it is going to be White Wolf all over again. That's not a dig against anyone, I just think it is what happens when gamers "grow up" (irrespective of age; I mean relative to how long they have been playing their introductory game). Of course, predicting exactly what that is going to be is the million dollar challenge.


----------



## Greg Benage

Campbell said:


> I doubt it. Those who feel disenfranchised are unlikely to find much solace in Pathfinder Second Edition. When it comes to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries to be able to work well for pretty much any class Pathfinder Second Edition and 5e are following similar trendlines. I happen to prefer Paizo's solutions to those design problems, but I do not think most of the people who feel 5e is going in a different direction then they would like are going to find Paizo more receptive to their desires.



I quoted the whole thing because I couldn't figure out what to trim. I don't feel "disenfranchised," and I don't object to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries, in general, but I also don't equate fantasy species with physiological differences to real-world bioessentialism, nor do I feel that the problem with 5e monster stat blocks is that they're too complex. I'll allow that Wizards may have good reasons to view things differently, but understanding that doesn't do anything to deepen my enthusiasm for the design direction.

As one point of anecdata, I'm looking at PF2e for the first time. If Roll20 implementation allows me to pick and choose the bits of 5.5 I want to use, I think it's likely I'll stick with it. If not, I'm ready to jump.


----------



## JEB

Reynard said:


> Probably. One thing I do think is in the offing, though, is that there is an opportunity for a Zeelennial friendly game to appear and gather a strong user base. This space is pretty old at this point, and watching reddit and other, younger spaces shows a hunger for some things no iteration of D&D is likely to provide and still be called D&D: GM-less, prep-less play with a strong focus on permissive storytelling and freedom of choice. Someone is going to find the right combo and it is going to be White Wolf all over again. That's not a dig against anyone, I just think it is what happens when gamers "grow up" (irrespective of age; I mean relative to how long they have been playing their introductory game). Of course, predicting exactly what that is going to be is the million dollar challenge.



The Quest RPG seemed like it was trying really hard to exploit that opportunity, but it doesn't seem like it caught on. Maybe it just needs more time, though...


----------



## Reynard

JEB said:


> The Quest RPG seemed like it was trying really hard to exploit that opportunity, but it doesn't seem like it caught on. Maybe it just needs more time, though...



Interesting. I'm probably not the target audience but this is the first I have heard of it.

I don't know what the development status is, but maybe the super kickstarted Avatar game is the thing?


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> I wonder if that last bit is true though.
> 
> WotC have becoming extremely profitable, and D&D's success is a big part of that, but whilst D&D has some merchandise from WotC it certainly seems like the the current main profit-driver is rules/books sales. That might not continue indefinitely, and I've talked before about how D&D seems to be in the process of ceasing to be an RPG, and becoming a sort of "lifestyle" brand which is merely linked to an RPG. But even then, it seems likely they'd want to sell stuff beyond the basics, though whether on a per-book basis or a subscribe-to-get-all basis I don't know (it looks like the latter model is increasing in popularity, c.f. the expansion of Gamepass by Microsoft for example).
> 
> I mean, even Disney, who people have suggested makes most of its money from merchandise and parks, doesn't, actually - it makes about 1/3rd of it from that, the rest being from TV/movies (via various networks), except for 11% which is from licencing. I feel like WotC are kind of moving towards that model, but a subscription model, certainly to go beyond the basics, seems more likely than a pure F2P one with cosmetics.



The game is doing well, but those lifestyle items are adding up.  O risk for wotC, pure reward, for every t-shirt, notebook, and children's book (and there are a lot of children's books now).


----------



## Parmandur

teitan said:


> Ew gross. I hated the Monstrous Compendium model.



Wel, they are doing something with the free online Monsters. Maybe do free online Compendiums, and do illustrated collection books full of popularly used Mosnters. Who knows. But they are not limited.by traditional models.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> no iteration of D&D is likely to provide and still be called D&D:



This issue is going to become less and less relevant and less of a sticking point as time goes on.

That, or the brand will eventually go the way of Sears or Borders.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Interesting. I'm probably not the target audience but this is the first I have heard of it.
> 
> I don't know what the development status is, but maybe the super kickstarted Avatar game is the thing?



Avatar isn't a new system, it's Powered by the Apocalypse, which is a fairly popular alternative these days.

However, I think the Zeeleniel RPG is...D&D. And WotC is actively working to maintain that with the changes being made.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Avatar isn't a new system, it's Powered by the Apocalypse, which is a fairly popular alternative these days.



Yes. Why, I can't fathom but lots of people seem to like it. My point was that given how big that KS was I wonder if PbtA IS the Vampire of 2020s.


Parmandur said:


> However, I think the Zeeleniel RPG is...D&D. And WotC is actively working to maintain that with the changes being made.



I haven't seen any actual mechanical changes that look to be solving the combat focus problem that a lot of younger story first players have discovered the system.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> Excellent point.  Who is actually asking for a new edition, aside from WotC shareholders?



I mean, you can say this about literally every edition. 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, all of them had significantly less than 100% of players asking for a new edition. Especially if you looked at the people actually playing them. 3E was probably the most-demanded, because 2E was really looking incredibly old-hat by the end of the '90s. 5E was interesting because a lot of people were pretty dismissive about the idea until it was fairly close to release ("I've got Pathfinder, why would I want a WotC effort?" and so on).

To be honest, I'd like to see a new edition that goes a little further than WotC has been suggesting this one will, like fixes more things (particularly mechanically), and actually innovates a bit (particularly in the exploration pillar, which 5E has very poor support for).

Re: backwards compatibility, I think it's smart to do that, but it also means, imho, the next edition will likely have a shorter lifespan, and likely will be follow by a more significant edition change.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> This issue is going to become less and less relevant and less of a sticking point as time goes on.
> 
> That, or the brand will eventually go the way of Sears or Borders.



evolve or die.... 3e was evolution of 2e.  5e was too (I am skipping 4e to avoid fights).  if you took 5e back to 1981 no one would recognize it as D&D. if this continues 7e or 8e could look as different to a 2001 player of 3e as 5e would to a 1981 1e player


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Excellent point.  Who is actually asking for a new edition, aside from WotC shareholders?



me

I am 80ish% sure I wont get it... but I am about 3/4 of the way to were I was when I was ready to dump 3.5. I am ready for new and updated game. 

I am betting we will get 5.5 not 6e and they will change enough to make it need a new book/updates and keep enough to pay lip service to being the same... and as such I doubt 2024 is my year.

but who is calling for 6e? ME!


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, you can say this about literally every edition. 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, all of them had significantly less than 100% of players asking for a new edition. Especially if you looked at the people actually playing them. 3E was probably the most-demanded, because 2E was really looking incredibly old-hat by the end of the '90s. 5E was interesting because a lot of people were pretty dismissive about the idea until it was fairly close to release ("I've got Pathfinder, why would I want a WotC effort?" and so on).
> 
> To be honest, I'd like to see a new edition that goes a little further than WotC has been suggesting this one will, like fixes more things (particularly mechanically), and actually innovates a bit (particularly in the exploration pillar, which 5E has very poor support for).
> 
> Re: backwards compatibility, I think it's smart to do that, but it also means, imho, the next edition will likely have a shorter lifespan, and likely will be follow by a more significant edition change.



I wish they would make bigger changes.  That way they can do what they so obviously think the new kids want and stop with the whole "the game's the same" mantra.  I'm tired of being the lobster in the pot.


----------



## nevin

They just bought D&D beyond.  My guess is the rules will be different enough to require new books and we'll see a push for subscription access to books.  That will split the base I think.   A player only needs a few books, if you can get them to pay 10 dollars a month that's the price of three books, no printing costs and the player can use online tools.  Suck in enough  people ok with the sub model and they won't care if they lose a chunk of the base.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

nevin said:


> They just bought D&D beyond.  My guess is the rules will be different enough to require new books and we'll see a push for subscription access to books.  That will split the base I think.   A player only needs a few books, if you can get them to pay 10 dollars a month that's the price of three books, no printing costs and the player can use online tools.  Suck in enough  people ok with the sub model and they won't care if they lose a chunk of the base.



in out group text my group was just talking about wanting to use Beyond but not wanting to pay $120 for PHB xanathars Tashas and multiverse to make our characters (not to mention if DMs wanted to use monsters) but two of us came up with "I mean maybe if we have to rebuy PHB in 2024 we can do it then" at about the same time... so I would not say that is a bad idea,


----------



## nevin

Jer said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that people are still buying the core books and D&D is making Wizards a lot of money as it stands right now.  Unlike previous edition changes, Wizards doesn't actually need to apply the defibrilators and get the current player base to go out and rebuy all of the books they already own with a new edition.  Historically that's when TSR and Wizards have gone to the new edition well - when the edition's sales have started to slump and they need to revitalize the brand.
> 
> They could, if they choose, put out a new printing of the current core books with new art, updated with errata, and no other changes instead of putting out another printing of the current books and probably pay for it on new sales and the (probably larger than you think) group of people who would buy it just for the new art.  They don't actually need to make a bunch of changes to get the existing player base to buy new books at this point to keep the game going, and if they decide to go that route I'm afraid it will blow up in their faces.



I predict they'll start selling monthly sub access to D&D beyond.  Then people with subs will always have the current rules.  And 15 bucks a month is a 180 dollar set of books every year with no physical publishing.

.  They'll still sell books a lot of people want them.  But moving everyone online over time gives them better control of edition wars and higher profits.


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> if you took 5e back to 1981 no one would recognize it as D&D.



I don't believe that. It's different but hardly unrecognizable.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> I don't believe that. It's different but hardly unrecognizable.



it is as different from 1e as palladium fantasy (aka rifts if you don't know) is.  There is 0 reason to think anyone would be like "Oh that's just D&D" and infinite reason to think someone would think "Oh, a new TTRPG...it wont last, it's not D&D"


----------



## Oofta

GMforPowergamers said:


> evolve or die.... 3e was evolution of 2e.  5e was too (I am skipping 4e to avoid fights).  *if you took 5e back to 1981 no one would recognize it as D&D. *if this continues 7e or 8e could look as different to a 2001 player of 3e as 5e would to a 1981 1e player



I'd disagree on the bolded.  Except for the edition that shall not be named, the editions felt like a progression not a different game.  We can't go back in time of course, but D&D's rules for me has always been about giving life to my make-believe characters.  The details are different, the resulting feel is much the same to me.


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> me
> 
> I am 80ish% sure I wont get it... but I am about 3/4 of the way to were I was when I was ready to dump 3.5. I am ready for new and updated game.
> 
> I am betting we will get 5.5 not 6e and they will change enough to make it need a new book/updates and keep enough to pay lip service to being the same... and as such I doubt 2024 is my year.
> 
> but who is calling for 6e? ME!



I'm not calling for a new edition, per se, but I'm happy to buy it if and when it arrives.  

Just as there are going to be players who are pushed away by change, there are also going to be customers who are pushed away by stagnation.  It's like going to a fashion show in 2022 and complaining that the clothes from 2021 protected you from the elements just as well.  Fashion is about selling novelty, not utility.  For a luxury item like a new TTRPG edition, "change for change's sake" can be exactly the point.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Oofta said:


> I'd disagree on the bolded.  Except for the edition that shall not be named, the editions felt like a progression not a different game.



they only feel progression if you take each step in the path... skipping 2e 2e player options (more of a leap but) 3e and 3.5 then 5e seems VERY off. 


Oofta said:


> We can't go back in time of course, but D&D's rules for me has always been about giving life to my make-believe characters.  The details are different, the resulting feel is much the same to me.



that is every RPG ever... so Rifts, Deadlands, and Vampire would all be recognized as D&D...


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Yes. Why, I can't fathom but lots of people seem to like it. My point was that given how big that KS was I wonder if PbtA IS the Vampire of 2020s.



I'd say it is the Vampire of the Teens, but still going pretty strong. Fandom also seems to be trying to make Cortex Plus a thing, based on how many ads for the Dragon Prince game I've been seeing.


Reynard said:


> I haven't seen any actual mechanical changes that look to be solving the combat focus problem that a lot of younger story first players have discovered the system.



Mechanical differences aren't necessarily what is called for. The social influences I saw hoping mad in 2020 talking about leaving D&D for Quest RPG are back playing 5E, and happy with the changes WotC made in Tasha's and Mosnters of the Multiverse, and the change of design emphasis seen in Witchlight and Strixhaven.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> I'm not calling for a new edition, per se, but I'm happy to buy it if and when it arrives.
> 
> Just as there are going to be players who are pushed away by change, there are also going to be customers who are pushed away by stagnation.  It's like going to a fashion show in 2022 and complaining that the clothes from 2021 protected you from the elements just as well.  Fashion is about selling novelty, not utility.  For a luxury item like a new TTRPG edition, "change for change's sake" can be exactly the point.



But the question is, how much of thst is there, really? Particularly with the primary audience being high schoolers and College students, a solid rules base that is in place for whenever anyone turns 12 .ay be a winning  strategy. Long term retention is a nice to have bonus, not central to the business model. The large amount of merchandise aimed at little kids is probably more valuable for making money through generating new customers than any sort of rules revamp would provide monetary value through retaining long term players who also happen to like radical change (which is going to be a slice of a slice of the market, by definition).


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> they only feel progression if you take each step in the path... skipping 2e 2e player options (more of a leap but) 3e and 3.5 then 5e seems VERY off.
> 
> that is every RPG ever... so Rifts, Deadlands, and Vampire would all be recognized as D&D...



Six core stats? Check.
Core races? Check.
Core classes? Check.
Turn undead, fireball and magic missile? Check
Color codes dragons? Check.
XP, AC, Alignment? Checks.
Etc

There is a lot on top of those things, and some are a little different, but it is obviously E&D and not something adjacent.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I don't believe that. It's different but hardly unrecognizable.



I thinknthe average 12 year old in 1981 would recognize it.


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> Six core stats? Check.
> Core races? Check.
> Core classes? Check.
> Turn undead, fireball and magic missile? Check
> Color codes dragons? Check.
> XP, AC, Alignment? Checks.
> Etc
> 
> There is a lot on top of those things, and some are a little different, but it is obviously E&D and not something adjacent.



I was putting together a very similar post when I got ninja'ed here. But there are plenty of points of continuity that will indicate it's a flavor of D&D and not Rifts, Vampire, or Deadlands. That's pretty much a hyperbolic non-starter. Someone *might* confuse Pathfinder or another OGL-based clone but then the story is pretty easy to explain.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> I'm not calling for a new edition, per se, but I'm happy to buy it if and when it arrives.
> 
> Just as there are going to be players who are pushed away by change, there are also going to be customers who are pushed away by stagnation.  It's like going to a fashion show in 2022 and complaining that the clothes from 2021 protected you from the elements just as well.  Fashion is about selling novelty, not utility.  For a luxury item like a new TTRPG edition, "change for change's sake" can be exactly the point.



I don't treat TTRPGs as "fashion".


----------



## TwoSix

Parmandur said:


> But the question is, how much of thst is there, really? Particularly with the primary audience being high schoolers and College students, a solid rules base that is in place for whenever anyone turns 12 .ay be a winning  strategy. Long term retention is a nice to have bonus, not central to the business model. The large amount of merchandise aimed at little kids is probably more valuable for making money through generating new customers than any sort of rules revamp would provide monetary value through retaining long term players who also happen to like radical change (which is going to be a slice of a slice of the market, by definition).



Got me.  Fortunately, it's not my problem.  

I'm sure there's some level of change that can satisfy both the change-averse and the novelty-seeking, but that's a challenging needle to thread.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> Got me.  Fortunately, it's not my problem.
> 
> I'm sure there's some level of change that can satisfy both the change-averse and the novelty-seeking, but that's a challenging needle to thread.



Sure, but it is WotC problem: there doesn't seem to be much of a problem for them, though, as the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't treat TTRPGs as "fashion".



Hell, I don't treat my clothes as fashion, but the market for non-utility clothes is obviously extensive.  Just like with other luxury items, plenty of people buy new gaming material for the sake of having new stuff.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> Six core stats? Check.



that are not really what they look like, but they DO have the same lables... but they all just have a + with out any of the other modifiers. and they give bonus and negatives both more often... they would be recognizable but weird. 


Reynard said:


> Core races? Check.




plus a ton of non core ones, and I have seen 3e fans complain that the dragon born and teifling ruine the PHB, so I am doubting that 1e had MORE forgiving progressive players... this would be a small but not 0 sticking point


Reynard said:


> Core classes? Check.



yea but no... the fighter the wizard the cleric  are all there in name but don't really play at all the same saves and HD hp are all over the place... and it gets worse with the 4th core class where is the thief?  as they start to look at barbarians with rage and sorcerer and warlock at all this will feel less and less D&D and more and more "someone's idea of a TTRPG, but NOT D&D" 

and why so many hp... and why do all the numbers in general get so big. and on top of all that why do all the classes have the same bonus to hit?


Reynard said:


> Turn undead, fireball and magic missile? Check



again lables, but would someone looking at the turn tables and then the channel divinity see it as anything other than a name... and again Fire Ball and Magic Missile made issues from 3.5 to 5e imagine not having the intervening years... all of these are in name only.


Reynard said:


> Color codes dragons? Check.



this one I think is the best argument you have... the small number of monsters, but they still would not recognize ANY of the mechanic as coming from D&D


Reynard said:


> XP, AC, Alignment? Checks.



XP is the closest here...
AC, not anything they would recognize.
Alignment... people argued 3e gutted it and people who never played 2e claim that 5e destroyed alignment...




Reynard said:


> There is a lot on top of those things, and some are a little different, but it is obviously E&D and not something adjacent.



we can't get a consensus of MODERN 2022 players to agree on that good luck with a 1981 group that are looking at to hit charts different xp charts classes VRY diffrent


----------



## TwoSix

Parmandur said:


> Sure, but it is WotC problem: there doesn't seem to be much of a problem for them, though, as the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working.



I agree that the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working, but we're all treating 2024 as a new revision as a given.  So there must be something to it, right?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> I was putting together a very similar post when I got ninja'ed here. But there are plenty of points of continuity that will indicate it's a flavor of D&D and not Rifts, Vampire, or Deadlands. That's pretty much a hyperbolic non-starter. Someone *might* confuse Pathfinder or another OGL-based clone but then the story is pretty easy to explain.



Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments.  (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> Hell, I don't treat my clothes as fashion, but the market for non-utility clothes is obviously extensive.  Just like with other luxury items, plenty of people buy new gaming material for the sake of having new stuff.



All I can safely discuss is my own opinion, of course.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> I agree that the permanent Evergreen base seems to be working, but we're all treating 2024 as a new revision as a given.  So there must be something to it, right?



For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.


----------



## TwoSix

Micah Sweet said:


> All I can safely discuss is my own opinion, of course.



Well, I think it's pretty safe to make observations on various market trends and speculation on the future.


----------



## TwoSix

Parmandur said:


> For sure, and we have most of the pieces in play already, the big open question is how they are adjusting the Classes. The new Starter Set coming in August, which is for the 2024 revision, should be illuminating.



Sure.  My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks.  There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been.  It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks.  There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been.  It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.



there used to be a show on History called "man machine moment" and it was basically a theory that you needed all  three of: the person with the idea, the technology to do it well, and the right timing for inventions to take off...    I know in an episode of it or a related show someone showed when the first (mechanical) computers were made and that there were people who had a rudimentary knowledge of magnetism, and others with rudimentary know of electricity... basically all you need to make a pretty modern computer. IF it had all come together than, and advanced as it did post WW2 Shakespeare would have been writing on laptops or tablets more advanced than any of us have.

I said all that to say that we had a great growth... but it wasn't JUST the edition, there are alot of other factors. It might keep growing until D&D is as popular as video games. Or it might end at anytime. Without a high level diviner we just don't know


----------



## Reynard

GMforPowergamers said:


> Rifts uses a d20 to attack has stats hp and classes and races and alignments.  (Vampire and deadlands get more different but if all you are going for is 'make fatasy game')



You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> You're obviously married to the idea, and since we don't have a time machine we can't really test it, so there isn't much else to say other than I think you are way underestimating the average player in 1981.



okay, maybe I just have very different experiences with players calling out the things as 'sooooo different' even here on enworld even WITH the time and slow adjustments


----------



## Oofta

GMforPowergamers said:


> they only feel progression if you take each step in the path... skipping 2e 2e player options (more of a leap but) 3e and 3.5 then 5e seems VERY off.
> 
> that is every RPG ever... so Rifts, Deadlands, and Vampire would all be recognized as D&D...



When I switched editions from 2E to 3E it didn't feel like a different game.  I was just happy they changed the math to get rid of THAC0 and rolling high for saving throws.  At the time discussed how I wished they had done those changes back in 2E.  I don't see that much difference between 3E and 5E in the play loop or actual execution.  

Skipping 4E, I've always been able to transfer over PCs from one edition to the next pretty easily.  The details of the implementation changes a bit but the resulting character is much the same. I can't go back in time of course so it all just comes down to opinion.  In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Oofta said:


> In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D.



okay, maybe I just have very different experiences with players calling out the things as 'sooooo different' even here on enworld even WITH the time and slow adjustments


----------



## TwoSix

Oofta said:


> When I switched editions from 2E to 3E it didn't feel like a different game.  I was just happy they changed the math to get rid of THAC0 and rolling high for saving throws.  At the time discussed how I wished they had done those changes back in 2E.  I don't see that much difference between 3E and 5E in the play loop or actual execution.
> 
> Skipping 4E, I've always been able to transfer over PCs from one edition to the next pretty easily.  The details of the implementation changes a bit but the resulting character is much the same. I can't go back in time of course so it all just comes down to opinion.  In my opinion, if I saw the 5E rules way back in 1981 I would have still recognized it as D&D.



I think as long as you have the level, stats, race, and class, you can transfer between any D&D edition pretty easily, although you might have some differences in overall ability.  But it's really the character that matters, not the build, so those abilities seem pretty secondary.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

TwoSix said:


> But it's really the character that matters, not the build, so those abilities seem pretty secondary.



yeah and this is why ANY game that lets you customize and has things even close can have your D&D character ported over.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  My only major point is that while making changes can be risky, staying the same carries its own set of risks.  There's no obvious choice where the game will definitely keep growing the way it has been.  It's quite possible there's NO choice where the game can continue its rate of growth.



The rate of growth is not sustainable, no, but creating a stable rhythm with multimedia tie-ins is their stated plan. The movie is more important for driving revenue than cleaning up the rules.


----------



## Tonguez

Following the Edition Wars of 2024 Level Up II emerged to become the only surviving Universal RPG behemoth. Its innovative mechanics allow it to run any kind of game as long as its DnD


----------



## James Gasik

I don't know, I have a friend, Guy, who still to this day calls 3e "that horrible WotC edition" and insists that they should have stuck to making a card game.  The way he talks, you might think he was somehow personally betrayed by 3e's existence.  He still plays and runs his 1e/2e mashup with tons of custom rules, and he seems barely cognizant that we're up to 5e D&D.

When you ask him what the big deal is, he always starts with "why did they change Thac0, there was no reason to do that".  He actually *likes* rolling high to attack and rolling low for ability checks!  He *likes* the random d100 subsystems- I've tried for two decades now to even get him to try a newer iteration of D&D (or even Pathfinder), and he turns up his nose like it's limburger!

So yeah, I don't think you could have seamlessly ported 5e to the 80's.  People playing regular D&D would be like "uh, why is everything so complicated and weird?"  Also, 5e has _demons and devils_ and let's not forget how that went...

And come on, AD&D without Gygaxian hyperbole and purple prose? Without arcane and profound rules densely packed into the DMG?

Blasphemy!  People would riot in the streets saying "where's mah rules, TSR?!"


----------



## Vaalingrade

I for one am just glad that every d20 system game from the early 00's is D&D


----------



## Parmandur

James Gasik said:


> I don't know, I have a friend, Guy, who still to this day calls 3e "that horrible WotC edition" and insists that they should have stuck to making a card game.  The way he talks, you might think he was somehow personally betrayed by 3e's existence.  He still plays and runs his 1e/2e mashup with tons of custom rules, and he seems barely cognizant that we're up to 5e D&D.
> 
> When you ask him what the big deal is, he always starts with "why did they change Thac0, there was no reason to do that".  He actually *likes* rolling high to attack and rolling low for ability checks!  He *likes* the random d100 subsystems- I've tried for two decades now to even get him to try a newer iteration of D&D (or even Pathfinder), and he turns up his nose like it's limburger!
> 
> So yeah, I don't think you could have seamlessly ported 5e to the 80's.  People playing regular D&D would be like "uh, why is everything so complicated and weird?"  Also, 5e has _demons and devils_ and let's not forget how that went...
> 
> And come on, AD&D without Gygaxian hyperbole and purple prose? Without arcane and profound rules densely packed into the DMG?
> 
> Blasphemy!  People would riot in the streets saying "where's mah rules, TSR?!"



Yet still I doubt that a bunch of random kids in 1981 would have trouble understanding that they were looking st a D&D variant.


----------



## dytrrnikl

Reynard said:


> Idle curiosity about how folks feel. I don't really have a dog in the race and haven't been paying super close attention to things, but it appears that we are in the early stages of a "renovation" of the 5E rules, and we know we have revised core books coming.
> 
> So what I am curious about is how folks feel. Do you think that "5.5" is going to split the 5E player base such that there are 2 camps of 5E players -- 5.0 and 5.5? I know that some people felt that way about 4E essentials, and some folks stuck with 3.0 rather than go to 3.5.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Also, be nice.
> 
> EDITED for grammar.



If you look at past history, yes, the player base will split. Change is not something that is ever accepted without someone grousing about it. It happened with 1E to 2E, 2E to 3E, 3E to 4E which actually spawned Pathfinder 1E, and 4E to 5E. People like what they like. I still prefer 2E AD&D over other versions. With Star Wars, if it’s not the d6 West End Games version, it’s just not something I enjoy. YMMV.


----------



## James Gasik

Sure they would, the instant they see a 5e Halfling.  "What the...that's not a Hobbit!"


----------



## Parmandur

James Gasik said:


> Sure they would, the instant they see a 5e Halfling.  "What the...that's not a Hobbit!"



I don't think that would present a major barrier to most people, just as ot doesn't now.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> It isn't that they can't, it is that they should expect some attrition. They should also, hopefully, elicit feedback and if enough people feel a certain way, adjust their design.



People who will purchase the 2024 revision

some % of core fans, either people who just purchase everything or most everything dnd, or because they like the revisions ("finally, a good ranger!" etc)
*new players: *after 2024, the new core books will be the version available for purchase, and thus the *main audience *for these books are not existing players, but new ones

People who will not purchase the 2024 books

existing casual players who at most currently own a phb.  *This is a large segment of the player base.  *For example in my group, maybe half of the players actually own a phb, and I'm probably the only one who has a few other books. These players may very well end up playing with the revised rules, but only because the invested members (e.g. the DM) will have bought the new version
core fans who are unhappy or unimpressed with the (probably minimal) revisions

In sum: the main audience is a) brand new players and b) existing DMs.



Reynard said:


> I think it is pretty common a reasonable for people to feel a little put out when they realize the thing they have loved is changing in a way that makes it not that thing anymore. it doesn't mean that person is demanding anything. It's just an expression of grief or frustration or disappointment.




Sure...but it is a bit curious with something as low tech as a ttrpg.  As you mention, there are people happily playing OD&D, Basic, 1e-4e, which is easy to do because all you need are your old books, which are still available in a variety of formats.  I mean, every few years apple introduces new ports on their computers, which means that you have to get dongles for all your peripheral devices (and eventually new devices).  Or, entire software platforms disappear or change in a way that makes it so that you have to spent a ton of time migrating all your data elsewhere.  Comparatively, a ttrpg edition change is not much of an inconvenience.


----------



## Parmandur

Malmuria said:


> In sum: the main audience is a) brand new players and b) existing DMs.



That's the target audience all their products already.


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> Sure...but it is a bit curious with something as low tech as a ttrpg.  As you mention, there are people happily playing OD&D, Basic, 1e-4e, which is easy to do because all you need are your old books, which are still available in a variety of formats.  I mean, every few years apple introduces new ports on their computers, which means that you have to get dongles for all your peripheral devices (and eventually new devices).  Or, entire software platforms disappear or change in a way that makes it so that you have to spent a ton of time migrating all your data elsewhere.  Comparatively, a ttrpg edition change is not much of an inconvenience.



And there you go being dismissive. "Yeah, sure, people feel that way... But they shouldn't."

I don't think we should tell people how to feel about things. Let them be mad, or upset, or sad, without telling them.whst you think about how they feel.

I have said this before but I think it bears repeating: role playing is an intimate hobby. You share your fantasies with other people. As such, it elicits more intense feelings than other hobbies and interests. It's worth noting that when we drift from judging games to judging the people playing them.

And just to be clear: I'm not one of those people that is sad or angry or frustrated in this case, but I have been with other editions or other games.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Malmuria said:


> People who will purchase the 2024 revision
> 
> some % of core fans, either people who just purchase everything or most everything dnd, or because they like the revisions ("finally, a good ranger!" etc)
> *new players: *after 2024, the new core books will be the version available for purchase, and thus the *main audience *for these books are not existing players, but new ones
> 
> People who will not purchase the 2024 books
> 
> existing casual players who at most currently own a phb.  *This is a large segment of the player base.  *For example in my group, maybe half of the players actually own a phb, and I'm probably the only one who has a few other books. These players may very well end up playing with the revised rules, but only because the invested members (e.g. the DM) will have bought the new version
> core fans who are unhappy or unimpressed with the (probably minimal) revisions
> 
> In sum: the main audience is a) brand new players and b) existing DMs.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...but it is a bit curious with something as low tech as a ttrpg.  As you mention, there are people happily playing OD&D, Basic, 1e-4e, which is easy to do because all you need are your old books, which are still available in a variety of formats.  I mean, every few years apple introduces new ports on their computers, which means that you have to get dongles for all your peripheral devices (and eventually new devices).  Or, entire software platforms disappear or change in a way that makes it so that you have to spent a ton of time migrating all your data elsewhere.  Comparatively, a ttrpg edition change is not much of an inconvenience.



Actually, all you need are your old books, and people willing to play with you using them.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> And there you go being dismissive. "Yeah, sure, people feel that way... But they shouldn't."
> 
> I don't think we should tell people how to feel about things. Let them be mad, or upset, or sad, without telling them.whst you think about how they feel.



I'm simply making a claim: it's not difficult to play whatever edition of a ttrpg you like, and that will still be true in the future, in part because ttrpgs are so low tech.  As players, we are much less reliant on the company producing the game than, say, video game players who have to depend on companies hosting servers, or hardware changes, or any number of other things that would make it impossible for them to play their game.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Wel, they are doing something with the free online Monsters. Maybe do free online Compendiums, and do illustrated collection books full of popularly used Mosnters. Who knows. But they are not limited.by traditional models.



I have a strong suspicion that subsequent volumes of the new Monstrous Compendium may not be free; just this first one, to get people hooked.


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> I'm simply making a claim: it's not difficult to play whatever edition of a ttrpg you like, and that will still be true in the future, in part because ttrpgs are so low tech.  As players, we are much less reliant on the company producing the game than, say, video game players who have to depend on companies hosting servers, or hardware changes, or any number of other things that would make it impossible for them to play their game.



Maybe, but players are reliant on companies to produce new official content and network externalities are a real thing in relation to finding groups.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> I have a strong suspicion that subsequent volumes of the new Monstrous Compendium may not be free; just this first one, to get people hooked.



They did say the series would.be free, but didn't give specifics beyond they would do more, and they would be free.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> They did say the series would.be free, but didn't give specifics beyond they would do more, and they would be free.



Right, they're kind of vague about it - you get access to the digital MC, the first volume is free, there will be other free stuff (like the Spelljammer adventure)... but until MC Volume 2 arrives I wouldn't assume the whole stack will be free.


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> players are reliant on companies to produce new official content



How so?  Not only can you make endless campaigns of your own (a long and storied tradition particularly w/ dnd), but there are massive volumes of 5e content out there, not just from wotc, but also from 3rd party and individual publishers.  Again, it's not like a videogame where you play the official content and then you're done.


----------



## Unwise

I like to skip to the end of long threads like this to see what the latest discussion is. It is normally either something really odd yet heated like:

"I told you, Ferrets are a type of muskilid! and I fail to see how the breeding cycle of tortoises is even relevant to this discussion of Keats!"

Or it is Morrus telling two people to be civilised as their off-topic discussion of My Little Pony themed D&D fanfic has become a flamewar.

I  was disappointed to see we remained on topic this time.

Back on topic though: I think D&D players will keep speaking the same language with any 5.5 split, it will be a minor different in accent at most I think. I can't see any significant changes splintering things in any meaningful way. We are not readopting ThAC0 or a 4e style change. I think it will be less of a difference than 4e was to 4e Essentials. They still play the exact same way, with a minor tweak to the design philosophy.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> I have a strong suspicion that subsequent volumes of the new Monstrous Compendium may not be free; just this first one, to get people hooked.



You know, like those free samples at Costco.  Or heroin.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Right, they're kind of vague about it - you get access to the digital MC, the first volume is free, there will be other free stuff (like the Spelljammer adventure)... but until MC Volume 2 arrives I wouldn't assume the whole stack will be free.



No, they said there would be a free series of the Monstrous Compendiums specifically.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> No, they said there would be a free series of the Monstrous Compendiums specifically.



Oh? Where? From Wizards/D&D Beyond sources, I see the following...









						Monstrous Compendium Volume One: Spelljammer Creatures Is Now Available!
					

All D&D Beyond users get 10 Spelljammer monsters for use in their campaigns! Click here to learn about this collection!




					www.dndbeyond.com
				





> This is just the first volume of monsters coming to your D&D Beyond account! You'll be able to collect more creatures from across the multiverse as additional releases of _Monstrous Compendium _drop!












						D&D Digital Library | Dungeons & Dragons
					

Sign up now for a D&D Beyond Account to access your D&D Digital Library.




					dnd.wizards.com
				





> An ever-expanding digital collection of goodies to unlock can all be found at D&D Beyond, starting with the _Monstrous Compendium - Volume One: Spelljammer Creatures_.




Neither promises that future volumes will be free.

All the other sources I can find are third-party news sites, some of which are interpreting it as "all free" and others as "Volume One is free." (I actually can't even find a Wizards source that promises the free Spelljammer adventure, though that I don't doubt so much.)

Was there something in a Youtube video or such?

EDIT: Sidenote, you don't even need a DDB account to see Volume One now: Spelljammer Creatures


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Oh? Where? From Wizards/D&D Beyond sources, I see the following...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monstrous Compendium Volume One: Spelljammer Creatures Is Now Available!
> 
> 
> All D&D Beyond users get 10 Spelljammer monsters for use in their campaigns! Click here to learn about this collection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dndbeyond.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D&D Digital Library | Dungeons & Dragons
> 
> 
> Sign up now for a D&D Beyond Account to access your D&D Digital Library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dnd.wizards.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither promises that future volumes will be free.
> 
> All the other sources I can find are third-party news sites, some of which are interpreting it as "all free" and others as "Volume One is free." (I actually can't even find a Wizards source that promises the free Spelljammer adventure, though that I don't doubt so much.)
> 
> Was there something in a Youtube video or such?
> 
> EDIT: Sidenote, you don't even need a DDB account to see Volume One now: Spelljammer Creatures



From your first link, calling it "the first in a series of monthly drops available to all D&D Beyond users!" And they talked about it being an ongoing free series of Monstrous Compendiums in the after show for the Direct,  whixh is whynall the news sites mention it.


----------



## teitan

Micah Sweet said:


> Unless you don't like how they changed the monsters (particularly spellcasting ones), or removed cultural content from the race rules altogether in favor of a "make up the fluff you want, you don't need mechanics" approach to it.



That only matters to people like us, we aren’t the majority of players.


----------



## Maxperson

teitan said:


> That only matters to people like us, we aren’t the majority of players.



It's true that we are not the majority of players, but you can't speak for everyone else and don't know who it might matter to.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> From your first link, calling it "the first in a series of monthly drops available to all D&D Beyond users!" And they talked about it being an ongoing free series of Monstrous Compendiums in the after show for the Direct,  whixh is whynall the news sites mention it.



It being the first in a series, and it being free, doesn't make the entire series free...

And I just checked the D&D Direct, the relevant part starts at 48:48. They say the series will continue to be updated (49:40) and throughout the year there will be more (49:55). At no point do they clearly say it'll all remain free, only that it'll be available. (The video does earlier confirm the free Spelljammer starter adventure, FWIW.)

As for the after-show, if the only record we have is what's on third-party news sites, as mentioned they're also not consistent about whether or not all the installments will be free, or just this one.

I'm not saying they definitely won't be free. I'm just saying there's no definitive statement, which leaves room for future installments to cost money. And it wouldn't surprise me if that's exactly what they do.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> It being the first in a series, and it being free, doesn't make the entire series free...
> 
> And I just checked the D&D Direct, the relevant part starts at 48:48. They say the series will continue to be updated (49:40) and throughout the year there will be more (49:55). At no point do they clearly say it'll all remain free, only that it'll be available. (The video does earlier confirm the free Spelljammer starter adventure, FWIW.)
> 
> As for the after-show, if the only record we have is what's on third-party news sites, as mentioned they're also not consistent about whether or not all the installments will be free, or just this one.
> 
> I'm not saying they definitely won't be free. I'm just saying there's no definitive statement, which leaves room for future installments to cost money. And it wouldn't surprise me if that's exactly what they do.



I'm pretty certain they clarified in the aftershow that this is a free series.


----------



## Reynard

Malmuria said:


> How so?  Not only can you make endless campaigns of your own (a long and storied tradition particularly w/ dnd), but there are massive volumes of 5e content out there, not just from wotc, but also from 3rd party and individual publishers.  Again, it's not like a videogame where you play the official content and then you're done.



Many people are locked in to the idea that a game is dead if new stuff isn't coming out for it, and only WotC material is valid. That's true even on this board full of Greying GenXers. Whether is is a reasonable position is irrelevant, because it's about how people feel.


----------



## James Gasik

Plus making your own material is more work than going to your FLGS (or wherever you buy new books) and purchasing it.

(Yeah, I know, 3rd party, but you never know what kind of quality you're getting there- my friend has some 3rd party D&D books and we like to make fun of how absolutely busted some of that stuff is.)


----------



## DarkCrisis

Always be hold outs.  Some will keep holding out while the majority gets the new stuff.

Same when 6E comes out.

One lesson I’ve learned, only hang onto the essentials.  You don’t need Monster Manual 3 and PHB Expanded and 10 adventurer books you’ll never play again.  Just keep the (new) core 3 and then your fave setting or 2 to hang on to to convince yourself you don’t need 6E and then you’ll feel better about yourself when you finally do by 6E and you don’t have a ton of old books you’ll rarely touch again taking up space .


----------



## DarkCrisis

Reynard said:


> Many folks forget or are unaware this is exactly what TSR did with AD&D 2nd Edition. The Black Border books were reprints with new art and some errata applied, not 2.5.



I love those books.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> You know, like those free samples at Costco.  Or heroin.



no matter how many after school specials I saw, I have never once met a drug dealer giving free samples.


----------



## jayoungr

Parmandur said:


> No, they said there would be a free series of the Monstrous Compendiums specifically.



Where is this?  I haven't seen a thread about free Monstrous Compendiums.  Do you have a link?


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> no matter how many after school specials I saw, I have never once met a drug dealer giving free samples.



And believe me, I've looked!


----------



## MonsterEnvy

DarkCrisis said:


> Always be hold outs.  Some will keep holding out while the majority gets the new stuff.
> 
> Same when 6E comes out.
> 
> One lesson I’ve learned, only hang onto the essentials.  You don’t need Monster Manual 3 and PHB Expanded and 10 adventurer books you’ll never play again.  Just keep the (new) core 3 and then your fave setting or 2 to hang on to to convince yourself you don’t need 6E and then you’ll feel better about yourself when you finally do by 6E and you don’t have a ton of old books you’ll rarely touch again taking up space .



Nah. Adventures are cool even if you only play them once. The new monster book is made to be used with the new Core, so harm in getting that either.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

jayoungr said:


> Where is this?  I haven't seen a thread about free Monstrous Compendiums.  Do you have a link?



The aftershow of the D&D Direct. The D&D Digital Library is supposed to be free content that is updated monthly.


----------



## Parmandur

jayoungr said:


> Where is this?  I haven't seen a thread about free Monstrous Compendiums.  Do you have a link?



@JEB  Linked the D&D Beyond site where they mention it will be a monthly series (though they only have a few days to follow through on that), and they said in the after direct Q&A it was a free series.

I think it is to drum up business the way they dud during peak lockdown, with free material to get people going.


----------



## teitan

Maxperson said:


> It's true that we are not the majority of players, but you can't speak for everyone else and don't know who it might matter to.



Yeah but continued sales success says who it matters to. That’s the bottom line. None of these companies are in it for the fans and when people quit thinking that way and realize the bones that are tossed on occasion are just fab service the disappointment will end. Even in the TSR days everyone made the same laments that are made about 5e. They will make them in 10e. Just like Warhammer and GW, people will always talk about the old days and it will be different for everyone while new people continue to chuck dice and as their hair greys they will become us and talk about how 9th edition 40K was the last time GW cared about the fans and the paint was so good because ten years ago everyone complained about the products they get all teary eyes about now.


----------



## Gnarlo

Oofta said:


> I think the term you're looking for is "inflation".  It's kind of funny how people get stuck on specific price points for some things.  Another good examples is video games - for whatever reason people don't expect to pay much more than $60 for even AAA games, a price point established around a decade or so ago.  If they had kept pace with inflation [after a quick google search for inflation calculator], they'd be around $80.
> 
> Everything from wages for the people writing the product to the paper it's printed on to shipping costs have risen.  I'm surprised it isn't higher.



Same thing with board games; when Hasbro reprinted Heroquest there was the expected gnashing of teeth and rending of garments on the forums from folks expecting it to be sold at the '89 price. Accounting for 30 years of inflation it was almost exactly the same price...


----------



## Maxperson

teitan said:


> Yeah but continued sales success says who it matters to.



That's not true in the least.  It's one aspect of the game.  It can matter to you a lot and if you love the rest of the game, you will almost surely buy it.  I have a huge issue with the 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  It ALMOST ruins the game for me, but doesn't, so I continue to buy 5e products.  

Continued sales say nothing about which areas of the game a customer may or may not have issues with.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> That's not true in the least.  It's one aspect of the game.  It can matter to you a lot and if you love the rest of the game, you will almost surely buy it.  I have a huge issue with the 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  It ALMOST ruins the game for me, but doesn't, so I continue to buy 5e products.
> 
> Continued sales say nothing about which areas of the game a customer may or may not have issues with.



I find 5e 'good enough' I like a lot of it. I love some of it... but I dislike some, and actively HATE some of it.  However being the current supported game gives it a bit of a boost as well.

If 2024 came around and the new PHB was more like Basic D&D than 5e I don't think I would update to it.
If 2024 came around and the new PHB was written like a mash up of the TSR books and rifts (not the best) and the mechanics were more like 3.5 I would not only not update to it, but I would be very upset and vocal about it.
If 2024 came around and the new PHB was a 4e style game with every personal tweek I would want and better numbers a true merging of the best of 2e 4e and 5e using 4e as it's base... I would jump for joy be on here singing it's praises and buy not just physical books but online stuff to to run on roll20.

if (as I suspect) 2024 comes and they make a bunch of minor changes (like a 5.5) without addressing any of my more major concerns... I will be WAY less likely to update unless everyone I know is.   even then it might just be the end of my D&D days. 


this is were splits happen... my dream perfect edition would turn some off. my hated idea is EXACTLY what some want... there is no way to change things and not split the game


----------



## James Gasik

unless they increased modularity somehow, but...yeah that's not going to happen.


----------



## teitan

Maxperson said:


> That's not true in the least.  It's one aspect of the game.  It can matter to you a lot and if you love the rest of the game, you will almost surely buy it.  I have a huge issue with the 6-8 encounter adventuring day.  It ALMOST ruins the game for me, but doesn't, so I continue to buy 5e products.
> 
> Continued sales say nothing about which areas of the game a customer may or may not have issues with.



You are missing my point then. We aren’t the audience. We are a minority. The customer base is different now, continued sales success to this different audience indicates that the game is going to continue in this direction whether we like it or not. I like 5e though so it’s neither here nor there but the current customer base likes the game and where it is going. You are a minority. I have my issues with it but can live with it like I have every version of the game.


----------



## Malmuria

GMforPowergamers said:


> I find 5e 'good enough' I like a lot of it. I love some of it... but I dislike some, and actively HATE some of it.  However being the current supported game gives it a bit of a boost as well.
> 
> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was more like Basic D&D than 5e I don't think I would update to it.
> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was written like a mash up of the TSR books and rifts (not the best) and the mechanics were more like 3.5 I would not only not update to it, but I would be very upset and vocal about it.
> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was a 4e style game with every personal tweek I would want and better numbers a true merging of the best of 2e 4e and 5e using 4e as it's base... I would jump for joy be on here singing it's praises and buy not just physical books but online stuff to to run on roll20.
> 
> if (as I suspect) 2024 comes and they make a bunch of minor changes (like a 5.5) without addressing any of my more major concerns... I will be WAY less likely to update unless everyone I know is.   even then it might just be the end of my D&D days.
> 
> 
> this is were splits happen... my dream perfect edition would turn some off. my hated idea is EXACTLY what some want... there is no way to change things and not split the game



Let’s say that 5.5 comes out and that year they make a setting or adventure path or adventure collection that looks cool to you and that works with 5e characters?  Would you not purchase it because the “current” edition is officially in the revised phb, and you prefer the original?

That’s somewhat a rhetorical question.  If 5e players keep purchasing 5.5e content because they like it and it is compatible, then the player base is not split.  

And what would make the new adventures incompatible?  There’s encounter balance, except that that’s notoriously already broken in base 5e.  There’s a mix of short rest and long rest classes…also present in base 5e.  Etc.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Malmuria said:


> Let’s say that 5.5 comes out and that year they make a setting or adventure path or adventure collection that looks cool to you and that works with 5e characters?  Would you not purchase it because the “current” edition is officially in the revised phb, and you prefer the original?



again it depends on what they changed. in general if I choose not to update to the 2024 book I will not be buying additional products. 


Malmuria said:


> That’s somewhat a rhetorical question.  If 5e players keep purchasing 5.5e content because they like it and it is compatible, then the player base is not split.



I mean if I buy an old 2e adventure (and one of my buddies just did buy like 3)and update it to 5e does that mean there is no split between people playing 2e and people playing 5e?


Malmuria said:


> And what would make the new adventures incompatible?



I don't know... but I will revisit my crazy examples...


> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was more like Basic D&D than 5e I don't think I would update to it.



in this case I can't imagine wanting to use a basic adventure as anything more then concept... so I would maybe get some online reviews and make my own.


> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was written like a mash up of the TSR books and rifts (not the best) and the mechanics were more like 3.5 I would not only not update to it, but I would be very upset and vocal about it.



there is nothing WotC could publish that would get me to buy into such a game


> If 2024 came around and the new PHB was a 4e style game with every personal tweek I would want and better numbers a true merging of the best of 2e 4e and 5e using 4e as it's base... I would jump for joy be on here singing it's praises and buy not just physical books but online stuff to to run on roll20.



I would buy every adventure


> if (as I suspect) 2024 comes and they make a bunch of minor changes (like a 5.5) without addressing any of my more major concerns... I will be WAY less likely to update unless everyone I know is. even then it might just be the end of my D&D days.



this is the interesting "I don't know" answer.    If as I suspect there is just enough change to make people buy the books but not enough to address system issues, I think I would be less likely to buy any adventures until the next edition.


Malmuria said:


> There’s encounter balance, except that that’s notoriously already broken in base 5e.



it is almost to the point I can't imagine it being worse... I mean 'no advice' is almost better


Malmuria said:


> There’s a mix of short rest and long rest classes…also present in base 5e.  Etc.



this is one... if the new books remove 1 or both types of rest that could make adventures not backwards compatible.


----------



## Malmuria

GMforPowergamers said:


> mean if I buy an old 2e adventure (and one of my buddies just did buy like 3)and update it to 5e does that mean there is no split between people playing 2e and people playing 5e?




If you convert _The Night Below_ to 5e, that you then run with 5e characters and rules, you are playing 5e.  You’ve updated/converted.  The player base is split only to the degree that there are still people playing using 2e (or 3e or 4e) rules.

But I was more looking at it from a commercial standpoint.  If current 5e players can keep their core books, but use them with all the post-2024 supplements and adventures, and if 5e and 5.5 e characters can exist at the same table, then wotc has achieved their goal.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Malmuria said:


> If you convert _The Night Below_ to 5e, that you then run with 5e characters and rules, you are playing 5e.  You’ve updated/converted.  The player base is split only to the degree that there are still people playing using 2e (or 3e or 4e) rules.



right... so if I buy Curse of strahd and run it on 2e or go buy tales of the spell jammer and run it in 4e, or I buy forge of fire and run it in 5e... there is still a split from 2e 3e 4e and 5e players


Malmuria said:


> But I was more looking at it from a commercial standpoint.  If current 5e players can keep their core books, but use them with all the post-2024 supplements and adventures, and if 5e and 5.5 e characters can exist at the same table, then wotc has achieved their goal.



but again how little has to change (and again I already said that is what I think they will try for) to make that possible? how many issues would they have to not fix?

as it is now we already have alot of changes causing splits


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Just discovered this thread. All I'll say is... not really able to know until we see the 5.5 (or whatever you want to call it) update.


----------



## Malmuria

GMforPowergamers said:


> right... so if I buy Curse of strahd and run it on 2e or go buy tales of the spell jammer and run it in 4e, or I buy forge of fire and run it in 5e... there is still a split from 2e 3e 4e and 5e players
> 
> but again how little has to change (and again I already said that is what I think they will try for) to make that possible? how many issues would they have to not fix?
> 
> as it is now we already have alot of changes causing splits




Well, I would be surprised if the changes were significant enough so that a 5e character couldn’t exist at a 5.5e table, or that a 5.5e module wouldn’t work fine with 5e rules with no conversion.  The player base only splits if there is genuine and significant mathematical incompatibility.  For example, Call of Cthulhu has seven editions, and I’m not familiar with all of them, but I wouldn’t call the player base split even among those different editions, because they are so compatible.  If you want to join a 7e CoC game, and you have the 6e rule books, it’s not a problem at all.

I don’t think anything within 5e is really _incompatible_ with anything else.  Some people find Tasha’s OP, others grouse about the new monster stat blocks, but you can bring a base 5e character and a Tasha’s character to the table and it works.

In sum, some people might have a preference for 5e over 5.5 or vice versa, but I would be surprised if there were true mathematical incompatibility


----------



## BookTenTiger

I think there are a few possibilities:

1) if they make enough changes that this seems like 6e, there will be a split, as a significant number of players will stick with 5e.

2) if they make minimal changes, there will be a split, as a significant number of players won't feel like buying new books for small changes.

3) if they make absolutely no changes, there will be a split, as a significant number of players either grow bored with 5e or seek other games that match their needs.


So overall I think there will be a split, but there would be one anyways just based on the fact that 5e is 8 years old and has a wide variety of players with a wide variety of needs and desires. No matter what WotC does, a significant portion of players will want something else, and another significant portion of players will be happy.


----------



## Maxperson

teitan said:


> You are missing my point then. We aren’t the audience. We are a minority. The customer base is different now, continued sales success to this different audience indicates that the game is going to continue in this direction whether we like it or not. I like 5e though so it’s neither here nor there but the current customer base likes the game and where it is going. You are a minority. I have my issues with it but can live with it like I have every version of the game.



I'm not missing any point.  And yes, we are the audience.  Every one on this site, plus every other site, plus everyone who isn't on a site is the audience.  They are trying to sell books to everyone who plays D&D.  We are just a very small part of the audience.

You also need to stop talking for "the customer base."  You don't know what they all want.  You are not WotC.  You only know what YOU want.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

teitan said:


> You are missing my point then. We aren’t the audience. We are a minority. The customer base is different now, continued sales success to this different audience indicates that the game is going to continue in this direction whether we like it or not. I like 5e though so it’s neither here nor there but the current customer base likes the game and where it is going. You are a minority. I have my issues with it but can live with it like I have every version of the game.



I don't see any reason to think that the "new audience" is some monolithic consumer blob that will just keep buying whatever WotC puts out. Like all gamers I'm sure they all have their favorite parts of D&D, but they may not be fully aware of what those parts are if they don't have experience with other editions/games. 

if a 5.5e changes elements that someone liked a lot, they're likely to remain in 5e even if they only started playing a short while ago.


----------



## teitan

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I don't see any reason to think that the "new audience" is some monolithic consumer blob that will just keep buying whatever WotC puts out. Like all gamers I'm sure they all have their favorite parts of D&D, but they may not be fully aware of what those parts are if they don't have experience with other editions/games.
> 
> if a 5.5e changes elements that someone liked a lot, they're likely to remain in 5e even if they only started playing a short while ago.



Historically it has been though. Plus D&D isn’t the 900 lbs Gorilla of the industry. It’s officially Godzilla. It’s several tons of the industry in comparison to its leading competitor in terms of brand and dollars. So yes if it has the D&D brand it will be gobbled up. People are willing to drop 400 bucks on a Tiamat or a red dragon because it says D&D on it. 

Plus I already said it will be dependent on compatibility how quick adoption occurs. All I am saying is older players are not their concern. They are no longer the audience. How is that being missed when I said that very explicitly? With extremely plain language? We make up a very small part of the current audience. People will migrate based on compatibility, but they will migrate and eventually move on from the current edition altogether. Grognards, people who stick with older editions are a very small percentage of an audience with the one stand out being 3.5 because Hasbro misread the audience and market. Even then 4e still did numbers that every other publisher would have been salivating over because… 900 lbs gorilla. The stories of PF beating D&D come with caveats and analysis that fans weren’t looking at when they cheered the statistics. It still had a good adoption rate. Meteoric abandon rate of course.


----------



## teitan

Maxperson said:


> I'm not missing any point.  And yes, we are the audience.  Every one on this site, plus every other site, plus everyone who isn't on a site is the audience.  They are trying to sell books to everyone who plays D&D.  We are just a very small part of the audience.
> 
> You also need to stop talking for "the customer base."  You don't know what they all want.  You are not WotC.  You only know what YOU want.



Yes you are and are getting emotional. Have a good day.


----------



## Maxperson

teitan said:


> Yes you are and are getting emotional. Have a good day.



ROFL  Not at all emotional dude, but thanks for playing the assumption game.  Have a good one.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yep, the player base certainly is united and in harmony right now. Only 5.5e could sunder such glorious unity.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

teitan said:


> All I am saying is older players are not their concern. They are no longer the audience. How is that being missed when I said that very explicitly? With extremely plain language? We make up a very small part of the current audience. People will migrate based on compatibility, but they will migrate and eventually move on from the current edition altogether. Grognards, people who stick with older editions are a very small percentage of an audience with the one stand out being 3.5 because Hasbro misread the audience and market. Even then 4e still did numbers that every other publisher would have been salivating over because… 900 lbs gorilla. The stories of PF beating D&D come with caveats and analysis that fans weren’t looking at when they cheered the statistics. It still had a good adoption rate. Meteoric abandon rate of course.



I think you might be the one in this thread who cares the most about older players.


----------

