Quote from: Jaeger on September 27, 2021, 09:39:27 PM
A little over a year ago I said:

"I think a 6e release for the 50th anniversary of D&D will be too hard for WOTC to pa$$ up."

I was right that the 50th anniversary of D&D was too much of a temptation for WotC to pass up.

Way back when 5e first came out, with it's emphasis on digital, I predicted that 5e would be the last version of D&D ever made. With the RPG simply being a placeholder game to maintain copyright while WotC transitions D&D away from being an RPG to being a multi-media franchise.

I wasn't right, but I wasn't 100% wrong either.

They're talking about "new formats." I predict this will mean softcover books. Inflation is a real thing to deal with now, and they're probably looking for ways to mitigate that.

I feel like we should have some kind of over/under on how many pages the new PHB will spend on "safety tools" and ideological harangues. I'm thinking probably "3 pages or less" vs. "more than 3 pages."

Quote from: Plotinus on September 28, 2021, 09:03:08 AM
I feel like we should have some kind of over/under on how many pages the new PHB will spend on "safety tools" and ideological harangues. I'm thinking probably "3 pages or less" vs. "more than 3 pages."

Put me down for over. It's scheduled for 2024, which is 3 more years for the Woke cancer to metastasize. If Trump runs for President in 2024, when 5.5 is due to be released, I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 5 pages.

(Up front, I'm not a Trump booster. I vote Libertarian when I can. I can just see how Trump running again will drive the Woke even more nuts.)

Quote from: Reckall on September 28, 2021, 03:06:00 AM4E was written for 5 years old superheroes fans without even understanding that 5 years old are smarter than that. I remember thinking, back in the day, that I could use 4E's fluff as a source of ideas even if the system was dire, only to discover how, all of sudden, they were writing for first graders (and, again, badly at that).

Jeez. I don't like 4e fluff either, but why is the insult always 'Superheroes'?

Lorewise again I find it doing arlight ideas just poorly executed and misguided.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 10:48:20 AM

Quote from: Reckall on September 28, 2021, 03:06:00 AM4E was written for 5 years old superheroes fans without even understanding that 5 years old are smarter than that. I remember thinking, back in the day, that I could use 4E's fluff as a source of ideas even if the system was dire, only to discover how, all of sudden, they were writing for first graders (and, again, badly at that).

Jeez. I don't like 4e fluff either, but why is the insult always 'Superheroes'?

While in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities. Which is fine for a superhero game, but it was another element of 4e that went too far and didn't "feel" like what people liked from previous editions.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
For 5e they've consistently defined backwards compatible as stuff from the older book can be played as written along side stuff from the new book. 

That may be the standard for their current 5e splat book releases.

But everyone knows that it is a standard that even they are unable to really keep. Twilight Cleric anyone? And I am sure a true 5e aficionado could point out more than a few other issues.

But we are not talking about current 5e. We are talking about the "50th Anniversary release of D&D" which according to Ray Winninger's own words is: "A living game that continues to grow and evolve." and "The next evolution of the game."


As to my backward compatibility claims made for previous editions that you so roundly dismissed:

We've done similar dances before my friend.

Back for more eh!?

I am happy to comply...

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
PF was never claimed to be backwards compatible with 3e. It was claimed that if you play 3e you will find it nearly seamless to pick up PF. They never claimed you could play a 3e PC along side a Pathfinder PC though. 5e does make that claim about this.

Except:
https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour
Lisa Stevens said...
"We also had to make a huge decision about how far we were going to stray from the 3.5 SRD. Our alpha playtest had introduced a number of new systems that pushed the boundaries of backwards compatibility. Ultimately, we decided to keep Pathfinder fairly close to its 3.5 roots while using years and years of GM experiences to update and fine-tune the system. We certainly didn't fix everything we could have in 3.5—some issues are endemic to the math underlying the core system—but we did fix a lot of the problem areas.

So why did we swing the pendulum toward backward compatibility? Because our customers were telling us that they didn't want their trove of 3.0 and 3.5 books to become obsolete. Everyone had a pile of Wizards of the Coast products, of course, but the OGL and the d20 license had also inspired an explosion of print and PDF books the likes of which the gaming industry had never before seen. And we really wanted people to be able to use all of those products with Pathfinder. For the most part, I think that we did a good job striking the balance between compatibility and innovation."

How well did they do?

They certainly gave it the 'Ol WotC try it seems:
https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/2104/wizards-coast-goes-beyond-3rd-edition
"According to WOTC the revised editions of the core rulebooks will be fully compatible with existing D&D backlist items, and will also contain instructions on how to meld any new information with current campaigns and adventures.  The revised editions will include content from books that have been published since the Third Edition core books came out in 2000."

How did all that work out for the 3.0 players when 3.5 came out?

Oh yeah, that's right...

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
Same with 1e and 2e. They never made a claim you could play portions of both at the same table and have it work just fine...because it couldn't.

Except it is common knowledge that:

"Initially, the 2nd edition was planned to consolidate the game, but more changes were made during development, while still aiming at backwards compatibility with 1st edition."

And from people who actually play the game:
https://www.reddit.com/r/adnd/comments/4m9vun/add_and_add_2nd_edition_are_the_rules_compatible/
"You can use 1e PHB classes in 2e w/o much issues. You can use a lot of the mechanics in the 1e DMG in 2e if you like w/o much issues.
I would default to 2e's rules mechanics when they exist over 1e in most cases since they have been "fixed" or "streamlined" (like initiative).
So yeah, I'd say 98% compatibility is accurate.
2e is much more organized and easier to find things. It is also a lot drier to read versus the 1e DMG. I think both editions are good to check out but if you only have one choice I'd go with 2e strictly for ease of use."

Tantras and Waterdeep modules include "how-to" compatibility notes as it was right around the change:
"This adventure is written using the terminology and rules of the 2nd Edition ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game, but is still easily playable by those who are using the original game materials. Some of the more noticeable differences are changes in name only. ... Although the information is organized differently and has been somewhat expanded, nothing from the original format has been omitted; everything that 1st Edition DMs are accustomed to seeing is still provided in the new descriptive format. The page on which the quelzarn description appears can be photocopied and inserted in a Monstrous Compendium binder if the DM so desires."

By anyone's standards: TSR was touting AD&D2e's "backwards compatibility" from the beginning.

AD&D2e, along with PF1, 3.5, all had statements about their "backwards compatibility" with the previous editions. Whether or not they succeeded, or to what degree they were actually compatible, is irrelevant!

They all made the same Marketing Statement that WotC is making right now about the "50th Anniversary release of D&D".


These go quite well together:

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
So you can play a monster from an old book along with a monster from a new book, but you might find the old monster is not as balanced as the new monster. Which should be no problem.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
I think we're going to see things like, "You can play the old version of the Champion, or the new version of the Champion, or even have a PC of one of each, and you won't see any problems at your table." Because the basic rules will remain the same, they're just going to rebalance classes like that (in that case to give the Champion sub-class probably more abilities).

"You know what, I'll play the less optimal older version of the Champion, you go ahead and play the new hotness that is a bit better, I'll be fine." Said no player ever.

"Hey guys go ahead and bring your old 5e books so that we can reference them if there are issues, because you know I'm all about having to deal with older versions of the rules at my table."

I'm sure that will be the universal standard for GMs going forward in 2024...


What did WotC say back with the 3.5 release?
"WOTC's D&D design team noted that the main impetus for revision came from 'consumer feedback that has provided us with a wealth of information for making our books richer in depth and easier in gameplay.'"

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

That WotC brand Kool-Aid must be so soothing...

Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 28, 2021, 07:59:57 AM
Way back when 5e first came out, with it's emphasis on digital, I predicted that 5e would be the last version of D&D ever made. With the RPG simply being a placeholder game to maintain copyright while WotC transitions D&D away from being an RPG to being a multi-media franchise.

I wasn't right, but I wasn't 100% wrong either.

In some cases, over target is good enough.

You are not wrong, Hasbro is putting big $$$ behind making D&D a brand outside of the RPG.


IMHO what is really interesting is the complete lack of real pushback I'm seeing on other forums of the upcoming 5.X edition in 2024.

The 50th anniversary is going to give them a lot of cover, and they are careful to never use the phrase "edition" when talking about the 2024 revisions in the video.

I think they will totally get away with it because it will be building off of the 5e core, and 10 years out is much more palatable turn around for a new edition than the one that they pulled with 3.5.

10 years for an "edition" will make the transition for those interested. In utter vain I wish WH40K would space out there editions closer to every 10 years.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PM
While in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities. Which is fine for a superhero game, but it was another element of 4e that went too far and didn't "feel" like what people liked from previous editions.

That's a great description of how 4E played at the table. I didn't play much of it, but the few times we tried it, it reminded me of Champions. Aside from the HP bloat, which made fights drag on far too long.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 28, 2021, 02:52:08 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
For 5e they've consistently defined backwards compatible as stuff from the older book can be played as written along side stuff from the new book. 

That may be the standard for their current 5e splat book releases.

But everyone knows that it is a standard that even they are unable to really keep. Twilight Cleric anyone?

I am playing a Twilight character alongside some PHB classes, and we're not having issues. So, not sure what your point is?

QuoteExcept:
https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour
Lisa Stevens said...
"We also had to make a huge decision about how far we were going to stray from the 3.5 SRD. Our alpha playtest had introduced a number of new systems that pushed the boundaries of backwards compatibility. Ultimately, we decided to keep Pathfinder fairly close to its 3.5 roots while using years and years of GM experiences to update and fine-tune the system. We certainly didn't fix everything we could have in 3.5—some issues are endemic to the math underlying the core system—but we did fix a lot of the problem areas.

So why did we swing the pendulum toward backward compatibility? Because our customers were telling us that they didn't want their trove of 3.0 and 3.5 books to become obsolete. Everyone had a pile of Wizards of the Coast products, of course, but the OGL and the d20 license had also inspired an explosion of print and PDF books the likes of which the gaming industry had never before seen. And we really wanted people to be able to use all of those products with Pathfinder. For the most part, I think that we did a good job striking the balance between compatibility and innovation."

How well did they do?

I had never seen that quote. Well Lisa was definitely telling a big fat ole fib there!

QuoteThey certainly gave it the 'Ol WotC try it seems:
https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/2104/wizards-coast-goes-beyond-3rd-edition
"According to WOTC the revised editions of the core rulebooks will be fully compatible with existing D&D backlist items, and will also contain instructions on how to meld any new information with current campaigns and adventures.  The revised editions will include content from books that have been published since the Third Edition core books came out in 2000."

How did all that work out for the 3.0 players when 3.5 came out?

On that one for the most part it did work OK that way for our group. We did mix materials for quite a number of years.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
So you can play a monster from an old book along with a monster from a new book, but you might find the old monster is not as balanced as the new monster. Which should be no problem.

Quote from: Mistwell on September 27, 2021, 09:55:59 PM
I think we're going to see things like, "You can play the old version of the Champion, or the new version of the Champion, or even have a PC of one of each, and you won't see any problems at your table." Because the basic rules will remain the same, they're just going to rebalance classes like that (in that case to give the Champion sub-class probably more abilities).

Quote"You know what, I'll play the less optimal older version of the Champion, you go ahead and play the new hotness that is a bit better, I'll be fine." Said no player ever.

This idea that everyone cares about optimization is, frankly, nonsense. Particularly from an OSR fan it's laughable. Yes, many people do not care about that level of balance in their game. If you do, cool.

As an aside, is D&D the last big brand requiring millennials to buy actual dead tree books?

I can imagine the system migrating entirely onto an app that does the rules for you as you respond to natural-language questions.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PMWhile in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities.

.....I have never felt that was what described Superhero combat. I wouldn't use that to describe Superhero comics, or TV shows or movies. Thats possibly one of the LEAST accurate ways I have ever heard superhero combat described.
I mean there is the one token gag in each film where the tough guy chucks one guy at another but thats about it.
If there is one word that DOESN'T describe Superhero combat, its 'Tactical'.

Superhero combat ranges wildly depending on power level, but the rule of thumb (for the iconic better examples) is improvisational, highly mobile, and contextual.

A few weak-ass minor push abilities and some buffs/debuffs (that are not all spells, which D&D had always had bucketloads of from the very start and practically invented the idea of buffing/ debuffing enemies/allies), and thats whats described as Superhero combat? A genre where characters rarely buff/heal/debuff (unless you count a net as a debuff).

Videogamey, self-involved, padded, ridgid, grindy - those are insult style adjectives you could throw at 4e combat, but SUPERHERO? Thats a deep insult to Superheroic combat!

My personal insult is 'Bumper-Cars'. There is pushing and shoving, but its all very padded. The experience is very restrictive compared to driving a real car and feeling real momentum.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 28, 2021, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PMWhile in previous editions, combat was about co-ordinating efforts to succeed, 4e really turned this up to an "11", with abilities that synergize to produce an effect greater than the sum of it's parts. Area of Effect attacks and abilites that buff allies and weaken opponenets, pushing enemies around the battlefield. It felt very much like a fight scene from X-Men or Fantastic Four, where the superheroes riff off of each other's abilities.

.....I have never felt that was what described Superhero combat. I wouldn't use that to describe Superhero comics, or TV shows or movies. Thats possibly one of the LEAST accurate ways I have ever heard superhero combat described.
I mean there is the one token gag in each film where the tough guy chucks one guy at another but thats about it.
If there is one word that DOESN'T describe Superhero combat, its 'Tactical'.

Superhero combat ranges wildly depending on power level, but the rule of thumb (for the iconic better examples) is improvisational, highly mobile, and contextual.

A few weak-ass minor push abilities and some buffs/debuffs (that are not all spells, which D&D had always had bucketloads of from the very start and practically invented the idea of buffing/ debuffing enemies/allies), and thats whats described as Superhero combat? A genre where characters rarely buff/heal/debuff (unless you count a net as a debuff).

Videogamey, self-involved, padded, ridgid, grindy - those are insult style adjectives you could throw at 4e combat, but SUPERHERO? Thats a deep insult to Superheroic combat!

My personal insult is 'Bumper-Cars'. There is pushing and shoving, but its all very padded. The experience is very restrictive compared to driving a real car and feeling real momentum.

Its pretty easy to explain the "Super-hero" problem of 4e if you come at it from the perspective of being a DnD player.  Everyone gets spells that recharge over the space of 5 minutes together with a but load of HP and fighting monsters that hit like a Nerf bat.

Frankly a 4e character just feels super heroic in comparison to a DnD character.

From the perspective of a super hero player then yeah the comparison seems illogical.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 28, 2021, 03:14:19 PM

You are not wrong, Hasbro is putting big $$$ behind making D&D a brand outside of the RPG.

Are they, though?

Where's the posters, the lunch-boxes, the flood of new video games, the multiple TV shows, an official Hasbro/D&D Youtube channel, clothes (and no, 80s tees and that one guy who makes incredibly overpriced junk jewelry don't count), placemats, branded cereal, etc.

I think they'd like it if D&D was a big brand but I don't see them pushing it outside the RPG, really, at all.  They, Papa Hasbro, are fine with letting WotC do all the heavy lifting.  And WotC can only lift so much, apparently.

Organic things like Stranger Things or D&D showing up in The Goldbergs is pleasant happenstance.  Script-writers and show runners are late 40s early 50s gen-xers who were nerds during the times those shows' plots are set in, not because WotC went out beating the bushes asking companies to feature their stuff in their shows.

WotC made Cartoon Network - a CBS/Viacom company! - change the name of an episode of Dexter's Lab from "D & Dee Dee" to "Sisters and Sorcery" because they felt it was "too close" to D&D, despite Genndy Tartakovsky saying it was a near-copy of a game of D&D he played with his friends, and wanted to honor it (to be fair though that episode is from the late 1990s...); but they just as easily could have left it alone and let that good will build up.

I know a lot of people (myself included) have grumbled about the reinvention of D&D as a Lifestyle Brand (I'm sorry - when people say "Lifestyle brand" all I can think of is that they're putting their product name on condoms...but I digress), and within the arena of gaming geeks who already know what D&D is that's been very true.

But to my eyes, there's been zero lateral movement, which is what you'd see if they were really "putting big $$$" behind making it a popular brand.