One D&D

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, I don't know about offloading additional mechanics onto backgrounds. Those strike me as the least portable part of char gen from one setting to another. I guess you can reskin or whatever. Meh.

 

[Malckuss]

I get the impression that most of the playtest material was taken back out, as the feedback was negative. Maybe I missed something.

The biggest changes I have seen are mostly in character creation, where a lot of the benefits come from background instead of class or type (race). In that light the game would likely be highly backwards compatible, as it doesn't matter where you get the plusses as long as the same number of plusses are acquired by characters.

The change is combining race and background. Mechanics wise players are still getting the same amount and type of “stuff” just worded differently.

Well, the other big change is once again making feats core instead of optional; you get feats on a progression in addition to stat increases.

 

[Jetstream]

Well, the other big change is once again making feats core instead of optional; you get feats on a progression in addition to stat increases.

People keep saying this but I haven't seen it? I just see that Ability Score Improvement is now called a feat, and it explicitly says you can take a feat instead.

That seems like a largely semantic change.

 

[Endless Flight]

This is like arguing what shapes you want your Kraft macaroni & cheese to be.

 

[Jetstream]

This is like arguing what shapes you want your Kraft macaroni & cheese to be.

Right!?

 

[AsenRG]

This is like arguing what shapes you want your Kraft macaroni & cheese to be.

So...something that people actually do?

 

[sharps54]

So...something that people actually do?

Or in the words of William Shatner

 

[Malckuss]

Or in the words of William Shatner
View attachment 73673

YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!

 

[Jetstream]

YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU'RE NOT MY DAD!

Isn't he, though? Isn't he?

 

[Bunch]

Isn't he, though? Isn't he?

Or is he someone you call "Daddy"? No judgement. You guys do you!

 

[sharps54]

Or is he someone you call "Daddy"? No judgement. You guys do you!

 

[TJS]

Backwards compatibility is irrelevant to whether a book is a new edition. AD&D 2e was mostly backwards compatible with 1e. It was still a new edition. Same with 90%+ of every TTRPG with multiple editions that isn't D&D. Even 3.5 was arguably a new edition, though, a lot of the text was copy/paste IIRC. But there were still significant changes to some of the material. Refusing to call it a new edition was just a marketing gimmick that the public just swallowed hook and sinker, and so is this. This is just artificial redefinition of terms with the public going along with it, cuz the authorities told them to ignore their lying eyes.

Gamers are just weird. You could change nothing about the game except the layout and you'd still find some people reluctant to use material from the old books and who want it "updated" to the new edition.

 

[Telok]

I think WotC is using a house ruled definition of "backwards compatable". It seems like they want people to use the old adventures and modules with the new rules (and maybe new monsters?). But to most people it means that stuff from the old books works fine along side the stuff in the new books. So I'm expecting a number of folks on other boards to throw giant hissy fits when some poor sot mixes versions because WotC is trying to claim everything is compatable when they don't really mean it.

 

[TJS]

I think WotC is using a house ruled definition of "backwards compatable". It seems like they want people to use the old adventures and modules with the new rules (and maybe new monsters?). But to most people it means that stuff from the old books works fine along side the stuff in the new books. So I'm expecting a number of folks on other boards to throw giant hissy fits when some poor sot mixes versions because WotC is trying to claim everything is compatable when they don't really mean it.

Yeah but it probably will be 95% compatible. People will throw a hissy fit anyway because somewhere in the middle of that general compatibility will be some interaction that's not quite clear on paper and requires a 30 second conersation with the GM.

What it comes down to is whether the wider gaming culture ends up treating it like a new edition. If they don't WotC will almost certainly consider it to have failed internally, so for that reason I think claiming it's not a new edition is bullshit.

 

[Ladybird]

The only reason they want to pretend it's not a new edition is so they could spend the last few years selling books. If they'd said "new edition", sales would have tanked.

 

[robertsconley]

Well, the other big change is once again making feats core instead of optional; you get feats on a progression in addition to stat increases.

They turned the old ability score increase into a feat and the new version won't break if that is the only feat you allow in your campaign. It is still shuffling chairs around the same 5e ship that has been sailing since 2014.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

This is like arguing what shapes you want your Kraft macaroni & cheese to be.

Pasta shape is more important

 

[Baulderstone]

Pasta shape is more important

Obviously.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Obviously.

As with Chicken Nugget shapes

 

[Jetstream]

Obviously.

Motherfu… where’d you find those!?

 

[AsenRG]

Motherfu… where’d you find those!?

Liddl, IME...

 

[carpocratian]

Call of Cthulhu is a good example of new editions that are fully (or mostly) backwards compatible.

 

[Acmegamer]

Just read this over on EN, I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusion Ben Riggs makes. Interesting nonetheless to read.

Ben Riggs: 'The Golden Age of TTRPGs is Dead'

Ben Riggs, D&D historian and author of Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons has...

www.enworld.org

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Just read this over on EN, I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusion Ben Riggs makes. Interesting nonetheless to read.

Ben Riggs: 'The Golden Age of TTRPGs is Dead'

Ben Riggs, D&D historian and author of Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons has...

www.enworld.org

I certainly hope you don't agree. It's complete hogwash that presumes the financial viability of the D&D industry determines the viability of the entire tabletop RPG hobby, among other ridiculous and baseless assertions.

 

[AsenRG]

I certainly hope you don't agree. It's complete hogwash that presumes the financial viability of the D&D industry determines the viability of the entire tabletop RPG hobby, among other ridiculous and baseless assertions.

Yeah, it is bullshit!

 

[Skarg]

"Oh no! Not the D&D industry!" (LMAO)

 

[TJS]

No. I never heard of "Apollo 47 Technical Manual the RPG" (referenced in the article).

Did it find an audience?

 

[TJS]

I find the argument a bit all over the place. D&D's success is good because it benefits everyone even games other than D&D, but when people like Matt Colville, move away from D&D to make their own games that's bad?

 

[AsenRG]

I find the argument a bit all over the place. D&D's success is good because it benefits everyone even games other than D&D, but when people like Matt Colville, move away from D&D to make their own games that's bad?

It's not exactly the only contradiction, I think...

 

[Silverlion]

No. I never heard of "Apollo 47 Technical Manual the RPG" (referenced in the article).

Did it find an audience?

A friend of mine bought one.

 

[sharps54]

Just read this over on EN, I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusion Ben Riggs makes. Interesting nonetheless to read.

Ben Riggs: 'The Golden Age of TTRPGs is Dead'

Ben Riggs, D&D historian and author of Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons has...

www.enworld.org

I see where he is going, you need to continually bring in new players to keep growing the industry and the best thing to bring in new players is a strong D&D. I think the issue for me is that I just don’t care if the industry keeps growing or if it contracts back down to a niche hobby again.

 

[TJS]

I see where he is going, you need to continually bring in new players to keep growing the industry and the best thing to bring in new players is a strong D&D. I think the issue for me is that I just don’t care if the industry keeps growing or if it contracts back down to a niche hobby again.

Yeah. And these things cycle.

Wasn't the hobby in a downturn in the 90s from the big D&D fad in the 80s? (or at least D&D was). Yet that downturn gave us so many games that are still around today. The article mentions a renaissance in games like Shadowrun and Deadlands but it would seem to me that the 90s would be a better candidate for a golden age as that's when those games (and so many others) were created.

Now it may have been that was unsustainable (I remember Ryan Dancey basically argued it was when justifying D20 as a universal system) and it might possibly have eventually led to the demise of the hobby if 3rd edition D&D hadn't come along. But it did come along, and I'm for one, very glad we had that period when it wasn't so dominant to actually allow a wider range of games to be created.

So D&D not being strong might be a bad thing for the hobby in the long run (if it doesn't recover) but it might be a very good thing in the shorter term.

Also D&D is really in a rut designwise right now. And if something doesn't come along and actually force it to innovate that could itself could be bad for it in the long run.

 

[AsenRG]

I see where he is going, you need to continually bring in new players to keep growing the industry and the best thing to bring in new players is a strong D&D.

No, it's not. Over the years, I've lost the count of prospective players that have been lost by D&D's focus on pseudomedieval fantasy.

You can as well say a Strong Vampire is a good thing for the industry. As experience shows, players that joined during the Vampire Craze are no different from those that joined via D&D: they're all RPG players!
Or a strong Call of Chthulhu can be just as good for the industry, whatever. And in all likelihood, it doesn't matter if it's one or several games sharing the leading place.

Why? Because what new players need is a group. How many other groups there are is entirely beyond the point - I've introduced people to RPGs via GURPS, Wushu, Savage Worlds, Fate, Blades of the Iron Throne, ORE, d6, Honor+Intrigue* and Witchcraft (and the list might be missing something). I didn't keep in contact with all of them, but for those I did keep in contact with, I know they kept playing. Some of them are running games now.

And finding a group is only getting easier these days, with the Net!

*OK, not sure about d6, H+I or Savage Worlds. I'm pretty positive about the other ones, though.

 

[sharps54]

No, it's not. Over the years, I've lost the count of prospective players that have been lost by D&D's focus on pseudomedieval fantasy.

You can as well say a Strong Vampire is a good thing for the industry. As experience shows, players that joined during the Vampire Craze are no different from those that joined via D&D: they're all RPG players!
Or a strong Call of Chthulhu can be just as good for the industry, whatever. And in all likelihood, it doesn't matter if it's one or several games sharing the leading place.

Why? Because what new players need is a group. How many other groups there are is entirely beyond the point - I've introduced people to RPGs via GURPS, Wushu, Savage Worlds, Fate, Blades of the Iron Throne, ORE, d6, Honor+Intrigue* and Witchcraft (and the list might be missing something). I didn't keep in contact with all of them, but for those I did keep in contact with, I know they kept playing. Some of them are running games now.

And finding a group is only getting easier these days, with the Net!

*OK, not sure about d6, H+I or Savage Worlds. I'm pretty positive about the other ones, though.

To the non initiated D&D is still the hobby. Sure youcan find people that came in through other games but they are the exception. To the general public they think D&D. The D&D movie generated buzz and interest in the hobby, the Mutant Chronicles film didn’t.

 

[sharps54]

If you want to generate unsolicited interest in the hobby outside of word of mouth from existing players D&D is the gateway.

 

[AsenRG]

To the non initiated D&D is still the hobby. Sure youcan find people that came in through other games but they are the exception. To the general public they think D&D. The D&D movie generated buzz and interest in the hobby, the Mutant Chronicles film didn’t.

Yes, and the general public happily accepts "we're playing a game like D&D that's not D&D". To the uninitiated it doesn't matter whether you're using THAC0, BAB, Bounded Accuracy or d100 roll under - it matters you're playing the kind of characters they see in fantasy books/movies.

Also, until we start changing that fact, it won't change.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I tend to be a bit flippant about this, but I still genuinely believe that the best way to find new blood isn't to rely on corporate marketing, but to bring people into the hobby yourself. Every person in my group is either someone I already knew and invited to join, or someone invited by another existing member of the group. Many had little or no RPG experience before joining the group, most still have no clue whatsoever about the wider TTRPG hobby, and probably wouldn't even know who WotC are.

I will admit, it might be harder for someone unwilling or unable to organise and run games themselves, because the first step will then be finding one or more decent GMs, or becoming one yourself.

 

[AsenRG]

I tend to be a bit flippant about this, but I still genuinely believe that the best way to find new blood isn't to rely on corporate marketing, but to bring people into the hobby yourself.

Word (and also number and quality)!

Every person in my group is either someone I already knew and invited to join, or someone invited by another existing member of the group. Many had little or no RPG experience before joining the group, most still have no clue whatsoever about the wider TTRPG hobby, and probably wouldn't even know who WotC are.

Cue my sister going "I should really try this D&D thing" last year.
She's only been playing for a few years now. And she still hasn't tried it!

I will admit, it might be harder for someone unwilling or unable to organise and run games themselves, because the first step will then be finding one or more decent GMs, or becoming one yourself.

Sure, but then those people couldn't start a D&D game going, either. I mean, after playing for the first time, you are either joining the group that showed you, or you're organising your own group.
The name (or acronym) on the cover doesn't change that dynamic one bit, IME!

 

[sharps54]

Hobby growth is about growing gamer groups, industry growth is getting new people to buy things. Healthy D&D is good for getting new people to buy RPG materials and all the associated tie in crap like t shirts. They are different things. We care about the health of the hobby, having people in gaming groups (in the case of this forum specifically in groups that don’t play D&D) but the article is looking at the industry.

Edit to add we can quibble over the terms hobby and industry but hopefully I’m getting my point across. I’ll be off line the next few hours so I’m not ignoring AsenRG ’s responses

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Hobby growth is about growing gamer groups, industry growth is getting new people to buy things. Healthy D&D is good for getting new people to buy RPG materials and all the associated tie in crap like t shirts. They are different things. We care about the health of the hobby, having people in gaming groups (in the case of this forum specifically in groups that don’t play D&D) but the article is looking at the industry.

Edit to add we can quibble over the terms hobby and industry but hopefully I’m getting my point across. I’ll be off line the next few hours so I’m not ignoring AsenRG ’s responses

You seem to be using the terms hobby and industry the way I do.

I also note that, contrary to my initial (and many subsequent) readings, Riggs does repeatedly refer to the industry, rather than the hobby. I honestly thought he was referring to the hobby -- because he talks as if we should all give a shit and be sad and concerned that it might be harder for him to make money from D&D in the future, and we should especially appreciate how wonderful it was to see the Industry/WotC flourish.

Edit: Ah, it wasn't on me. His reddit post opened with this:

TLDR: Many post-OGL TTRPGs have successfully launched. Their success will splinter the TTRPG community, ending what has been a golden age in the hobby.

So he says it's the end of a golden age for the hobby, but then goes on to talk about the effect on the industry (and, as an aside, is essentially gaming us gamers for this terrible turn of events, because we're just not loyal enough to the D&D brand).