D&D (2024) It's not worth it/we are out of luck/time

[GreyLord]

I think a concern in the "It's not worth it" belt is not in regards to feedback, but that people are not interested in the game itself when it is released.

There is the problem of the Wii conversion to the Wii-U situation. Everyone felt the Wii-U was just another name for an upgraded Wii.

I think there are many that here it is backwards compatible and simply feel that there is nothing that RD&D is going to offer them. They already have the rules they want, so why rebuy them?

This makes the next steps hard. If you do a backwards compatible game, you get those who feel this way.

On the otherhand, if you make a new edition, you risk antagonizing the beast that devours your soul. You could lose a lot of players.

At least, if they stick with the 5e rules the new adventures and other items that are published probably will be somewhat compatible with what they already have, even if they don't get the new Core Rules.

The trick is to thread the needle of being innovative enough so that people buy the new rules, while at the same time remaining true enough to the original 5e rules that you keep all the players you already have.

I think that's probably the biggest difficulty with those who may feel it's not worth it/we are out of luck...types.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

got saddle sores

Best euphemism ever.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Because people are slowly realizing that it's not 6E, but a continuation of 5E. The fact that WotC has been completely upfront about this fact seems to confuse some people, so they continue to push for ideas that are incompatible with the existing 5E chassis. When these ideas show 0 chance of showing up, they become dejected and denigrate 1D&D as a result. At least that's my assumption...

If it's still 5e, and not a new edition, then they need a name to refer to the revised rules specifically. Otherwise games will be organized and the DM will say it's 5e, and everyone will ask 'which one?' R5E? 2014, 2024? It will need a consistent label for the sake of quality of games and the accuracy of expectations about what the new PHB really is.

 

[payn]

If it's still 5e, and not a new edition, then they need a name to refer to the revised rules specifically. Otherwise games will be organized and the DM will say it's 5e, and everyone will ask 'which one?' R5E? 2014, 2024? It will need a consistent label for the sake of quality of games and the accuracy of expectations about what the new PHB really is.

Gonna start this again?

 

[Smackpixi]

I very much feel a great sense of despair and have resigned myself to the fact that it’s not worth it when it comes to One D&D discussions. And it is not because of anything WoTC has said or done.

 

[Shiroiken]

If it's still 5e, and not a new edition, then they need a name to refer to the revised rules specifically. Otherwise games will be organized and the DM will say it's 5e, and everyone will ask 'which one?' R5E? 2014, 2024? It will need a consistent label for the sake of quality of games and the accuracy of expectations about what the new PHB really is.

Just like D&D Next, 1D&D is a placeholder name. It's probably going to be something like Revised Edition (i.e. 5E revised) or Anniversary Edition in the final version. If they wanted to keep the 3X method, they could refer to it as 5.5E but I don't think that will be the case.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If it's still 5e, and not a new edition, then they need a name to refer to the revised rules specifically. Otherwise games will be organized and the DM will say it's 5e, and everyone will ask 'which one?' R5E? 2014, 2024? It will need a consistent label for the sake of quality of games and the accuracy of expectations about what the new PHB really is.

I do not honestly think this will be an issue long term as the community will come to some consensus on a name eventually.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I keep seeing this sentiment about R5e/1D&D/anniversary edition/version.

Why is it people think that we should not express our thoughts in discussions? What is the purpose of shutting down what people say they want?

A person should absolutely comment on what they would like to see.

But they also should be honest with themselves in acknowledging that posting what they want HERE is so far down the line of being useful that at some point their comments are no longer about actually seeing their desires met in the game... instead it's all about personal entertainment. A person posts and then responds, and responds, and responds, and responds, day after after day after day... and the reality is at that point they are doing it just to have something to do. To keep themselves busy. It's not affecting change... it's just so people have to hear their voice.

Because if by some chance a schlub at WotC has been assigned to go "check on the masses" because there's a question about a particular playtest data point that Jeremy et. al. needed further confirmation on that was not made clear enough in the survey responses... that schlub ain't gonna spend their day reading through an entire EN World forum post that's up to around 40 pages with the same three people bitching back and forth to each other reiterating the same exact points they made back on page 3. At that point, the schlub will say "Yeah, okay, I got it..." and those three people are just doing it to hear themselves talk.

Which is fine, by the way! If that entertains them to just run around in circles for three weeks, more power to them. But at least they should be honest with themselves about what they're doing. PLUS they should not be surprised or get bent out of shape when other posters show up to comment and point that fact out.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I keep seeing this sentiment about R5e/1D&D/anniversary edition/version.

Why is it people think that we should not express our thoughts in discussions? What is the purpose of shutting down what people say they want?

Huh. I haven't seen this argument made that I can recall. I mean, I've seen people argue against all sorts of actual opinions, but not that anyone shouldn't have or share their opinions. But maybe it's just that if I read anyone saying that, I'll just move on and forget about it. (I'm not at all saying that you're wrong if you feel this way). But don't let 'em get to you!

If it's still 5e, and not a new edition, then they need a name to refer to the revised rules specifically. Otherwise games will be organized and the DM will say it's 5e, and everyone will ask 'which one?' R5E? 2014, 2024? It will need a consistent label for the sake of quality of games and the accuracy of expectations about what the new PHB really is.

Oh, it absolutely WILL have a name. Of course it will. WotC is just not ready to reveal it until they have some cover art (or whatever) to go with the announcement. We're all just a wee bit over-anxious, is all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because people are slowly realizing that it's not 6E, but a continuation of 5E. The fact that WotC has been completely upfront about this fact seems to confuse some people, so they continue to push for ideas that are incompatible with the existing 5E chassis. When these ideas show 0 chance of showing up, they become dejected and denigrate 1D&D as a result. At least that's my assumption...

except no evidence has changed... we still have a 2014PHB dwarven bard not looking like a playtest dwarf bard