Rumor: After MotMV is released, you won't be able to buy Volos or MToF separately [Archive]

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-24, 01:32 PM

The best I can find by sifting through news platforms is gestures towards the idea that people who had previously released options that get reprinted in the MotMV will have them updated towards the errata. There is no indication or clear evidence that those books will cease being sold in print or as PDFs. I find the title of this thread a little distastefully clickbaity; I would actually expect better from you, PhoenixPhyre. (Yet here I am, successfully clicked and baited. Guess I'm the fool).

Most importantly, I see no indication that WotC plans to send death squads to your gaming table to prevent you from using older versions of stuff in your own game, which is about the only way they could 'force' you to use the revised versions.

Updated via errata is, in a way, even worse than just not reprinting things. Then you can't (if you're relying on the digital edition) use the old version if you want to--it's just gone. Which is something they explicitly said they weren't going to do.

And note: the title is accurate as far as the rumor goes (that they won't sell the originals any more in any new-sale channel). And is explicitly marked as "Rumor". Note I never said you are can't upgrade, but you will likely have to upgrade unless you're only playing with the same group of people. And not upgrading is liable to cause massive confusion, because they're not marked as variants anywhere. You'd have to explicitly note "we're using the Volo's version"...which new people can't actually find or reference on their own because it's out of print.

Sparky McDibben

2022-03-24, 01:41 PM

(snip that drastically changes meaning of original post) WotC plans to send death squads to your gaming table to prevent you from using older versions of stuff in your own game

GAMERS!! Eat a good breakfast, for tonight we dine IN HELL!!!

(This is sarcasm, since I can't do blue text on my phone).

Catullus64

2022-03-24, 01:44 PM

Updated via errata is, in a way, even worse than just not reprinting things. Then you can't (if you're relying on the digital edition) use the old version if you want to--it's just gone. Which is something they explicitly said they weren't going to do.

And note: the title is accurate as far as the rumor goes (that they won't sell the originals any more in any new-sale channel). And is explicitly marked as "Rumor". Note I never said you are can't upgrade, but you will likely have to upgrade unless you're only playing with the same group of people. And not upgrading is liable to cause massive confusion, because they're not marked as variants anywhere. You'd have to explicitly note "we're using the Volo's version"...which new people can't actually find or reference on their own because it's out of print.

Well I'm not best pleased with repeating a rumor like this so uncritically, especially since you can't be bothered to watch the actual source which the rumor claims (I'm not judging you for that last part; I can't be arsed to watch it either). Disclaiming that it's a rumor is only so much of a fig-leaf; though I assume your intentions were honest, you pretty much immediately go about discussing the rumor as if true.

If it is true that D&D Beyond subscribers will have their already purchased content revised at no option, then yeah, that's a pretty inconsiderate thing for Wizards of the Coast to do. Pulling them from print and PDFs would be a much more serious transgression in my book, but I can't find any other source which indicates that that would be the case. You can still buy printed copies of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and most of the options in that book have been outdated since Xanathar's Guide.

ProsecutorGodot

2022-03-24, 01:45 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-24, 01:52 PM

The FAQ I'm looking at (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1201-faq-for-mordenkainen-presents-monsters-of-the#Will%20two%20versions%20of%20every%20monster%2 0be%20maintained%20in%20DDB) says they will coexist, those with all 3 books will see all versions they own, not just MotM.

That was my understanding as well. Which is ok. I was responding to someone claiming that they would errata it out. Which, in that case has the effects I mentioned.

The new information (or rumor of information) is that while if you've already bought it, you can keep it...you won't be able to actually buy the originals anymore. That Volo's and MToF will be out of print. Which is meaningful in and of itself.
----

One other thought--

The new monster book also conflicts heavily with the Monster Manual (see the characterizations of goblins and hobgoblins for example). That's liable to cause confusion. Which version is "authoritative" (as much as such a thing exists)?

If they were going to do this change, they should have waited until they could release the entire 5.5e, replacing the old MM with the new 5.5e MM (which could include all the other stuff if they wanted). Not do it piecemeal, causing more confusion and bad press/bad will from players than necessary.

Willowhelm

2022-03-24, 01:59 PM

They'll be effectively out of print (note the rumor includes the print version) and marked as superceded by a new version. That's rather different than only being removed from one source.

Anyone coming in new will have to deal with the disparity and the differences, and will only have access to one of them.

At this point (assuming the change happens), it's the originals which are "optional" and the new versions are the default.

You can still buy books that are out of print.
If these theoretical new players only have access to one… what disparity and differences will they have to “deal with”? They only have one source. If they are playing somewhere with the discontinued books… they have access.

I think you vastly overestimate how much these “new players” are going to be affected or care, as well as how much of a challenge it would be for them to find the material if they did.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-24, 02:04 PM

You can still buy books that are out of print.
If these theoretical new players only have access to one… what disparity and differences will they have to “deal with”? They only have one source. If they are playing somewhere with the discontinued books… they have access.

I think you vastly overestimate how much these “new players” are going to be affected or care, as well as how much of a challenge it would be for them to find the material if they did.

Look at AL. One of the following will be true:
1. DMs will have to deal with parties composed of people using (potentially) both variants, even though they only have access to one source. That's not confusing.
2. AL will have to say that only the new variant is legal. Now all those old characters are no longer valid and can't be played.

Or any "DM has been playing for a while, player hasn't" or vice versa situation. Now you've got two sources in play, of which each person only has one. Unless the party standardizes (which locks out a lot of content). And there's going to be confusion. And worlds that no longer work (because they use the old lore and someone uses the new printing or vice versa).

Am I thinking this is the worst thing ever? No. It's just one more crack in the dam, a signal of bad management. They had a better way of doing this, and didn't. Any resulting issues are entirely on them.

Atranen

2022-03-24, 02:05 PM

If they were going to do this change, they should have waited until they could release the entire 5.5e, replacing the old MM with the new 5.5e MM (which could include all the other stuff if they wanted). Not do it piecemeal, causing more confusion and bad press/bad will from players than necessary.

Every major change comes with bad will; I don't see anything particularly egregious about this. It's a reasonable change, and folks who are buying multiple books know they can rewrite as desired.

Catullus64

2022-03-24, 02:07 PM

Although for the reasons stated above, and because of the source linked by ProsecutorGodot, I don't give the rumor credit, murmurings about this kind of behavior should definitely promote thought in the community and make people hesitate from investing too much of their money into centralized platforms and services like D&D Beyond or Adventurer's League, or from allowing their gaming experience to become too dependent upon them.

They may be a convenience, but if you depend on them, they give a measure of power over your game to a corporation that does not care about you. D&D content becomes less and less something you buy and then own, and more and more a service to which you subscribe. We're nowhere near the point where I worry about the decentralized, pen-and-paper nature of the game dying out. But I'll never say it's impossible. Buy books printed on paper. Buy PDFs that you store on your own hard drive, and then preferably print those onto paper. Value the autonomy which makes this game great, and not just another intellectual property to be milked for cash.

This message was definitely not brought to you by a game-shop DM tired of having to argue with people about his paper-character-sheets-only rule.

PhantomSoul

2022-03-24, 02:13 PM

They may be a convenience, but if you depend on them, they give a measure of power over your game to a corporation that does not care about you. D&D content becomes less and less something you buy and then own, and more and more a service to which you subscribe. We're nowhere near the point where I worry about the decentralized, pen-and-paper nature of the game dying out. But I'll never say it's impossible. Buy books printed on paper. Buy PDFs that you store on your own hard drive, and then preferably print those onto paper. Value the autonomy which makes this game great, and not just another intellectual property to be milked for cash.

Not just the autonomy, but the reliability of the product: your character (and the monsters) were created and allowed based on how they worked at the start of the character (with any applicable house rules, homebrew or whatever). A product retroactively changing means that you no longer know how to play your character for any changes, there's now an asymmetry in expectations vs. mechanics, AND these is neither the character mechanics that you chose to play nor the ones that were allowed for play. And you won't know it until you check some detail and suddenly it doesn't work how you thought -- and you might not even realise it's not you (or your DM) who has a faulty memory, but your product that was changed without your consent regardless of the product you payed for. /rant

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-24, 02:13 PM

Willowhelm

2022-03-24, 02:17 PM

Am I thinking this is the worst thing ever? No. It's just one more crack in the dam, a signal of bad management. They had a better way of doing this, and didn't. Any resulting issues are entirely on them.

What was the “better way”?

I’m sure the resulting issues are on them. I’m also sure they’re not a big deal even in your theorised AL situations.

There are multiple versions of a thing. That’s not exactly a big hurdle. Which version are you using? Sorry that is/isn’t going to work at this table. Ok. Cool. Done.

Sparky McDibben

2022-03-24, 02:21 PM

Buy books printed on paper. Buy PDFs that you store on your own hard drive, and then preferably print those onto paper. Value the autonomy which makes this game great, and not just another intellectual property to be milked for cash.

This message was definitely not brought to you by a game-shop DM tired of having to argue with people about his paper-character-sheets-only rule.

That first paragraph is gold. And the blue bit is...OOF. A big DM mood.

I'm running an Esper Genesis game now, and the friggin' grumbling when my players realized D&D Beyond didn't support third-party content...ugh.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-03-24, 02:23 PM

What was the “better way”?

I’m sure the resulting issues are on them. I’m also sure they’re not a big deal even in your theorised AL situations.

There are multiple versions of a thing. That’s not exactly a big hurdle. Which version are you using? Sorry that is/isn’t going to work at this table. Ok. Cool. Done.

Wait until 5.5e is released. Do it all then when you can be consistent. That's the better way. Everyone expects the 5e books to go out of print at that point. Don't make them out of print, only to do it again when you release 5.5e You've already decided to make changes, don't dribble out breaking changes in a minor version.

And dealing with confusion requires recognizing it's confusing to begin with. Which isn't always simple.

Willowhelm

2022-03-24, 03:21 PM

Wait until 5.5e is released. Do it all then when you can be consistent. That's the better way. Everyone expects the 5e books to go out of print at that point. Don't make them out of print, only to do it again when you release 5.5e You've already decided to make changes, don't dribble out breaking changes in a minor version.

And dealing with confusion requires recognizing it's confusing to begin with. Which isn't always simple.

I dispute that that would be “better”. Who is it better for and by what metrics? How would that be more consistent exactly? Now you have 5.5 and 5 and a handful of conflicting versions of things all at once. How does that make these confused new players of yours lives easier? How does it make these confused DMs juggling versions suddenly have a clear answer?

Chill out. Let them try their best and when the dust settles you can look back and see what worked and what didn’t. You’re not going to change anything about their plans but shouting into the void about rumours and theoretical confusion.

(I’m labouring under the impression 5.5 is supposed to be backwards compatible because that’s the last I heard - I don’t follow this stuff closely)

If they do this now and they get pushback and all these confused players wanting the old material they can course correct. If they wait until they drop a major change and then they realise people want the old stuff too then it may be too late at that point.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-24, 03:41 PM

This message was definitely not brought to you by a game-shop DM tired of having to argue with people about his paper-character-sheets-only rule. I will insist that my players use 3x5 cards, the old school way. That'll learn 'em!
Then they'll bless you for full page sheets! :smallbiggrin:

Catullus64

2022-03-24, 04:22 PM

I will insist that my players use 3x5 cards, the old school way. That'll learn 'em!
Then they'll bless you for full page sheets! :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure if the sarcasm from your blue text is in regards to "this is a thing I actually make players do" or "this is actually a thing people used to do." Did character sheets used to be on notecard-size paper?

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-24, 04:50 PM

I'm not sure if the sarcasm from your blue text is in regards to "this is a thing I actually make players do" or "this is actually a thing people used to do." Did character sheets used to be on notecard-size paper? First there were (lined) 3x5 cards (blank on the back, same stuff my mom used for recipes). Not sure where the idea came from, but when I rolled up my first character I had 3 dice, 1 3x5 card, and a pencil with an eraser. (Got a 16 Intelligence, Yay Me! Yes, I made him a magic user...and he survived).
Then there were pieces of paper. (FWIW, Men and Magic recommended a 3 ring loose leaf binder and paper).
Then there were these fancy things called character sheets.

For the first two years I played, we used pencils and erasers, and every thing we needed to know about our PC was on the front and back of a 3x5 card.

As the game got more complicated (AD&D 1e) I tended to use a sheet of graph paper (the green ones, I was engineering major) but plenty of my friends used a notebook with 8 1/2" x 11" lined paper, college rule but others had graduated to 4x6 cards.

Pex

2022-03-25, 12:34 AM

Luccan

2022-03-25, 01:03 AM

First there were (lined) 3x5 cards (blank on the back, same stuff my mom used for recipes). Not sure where the idea came from, but when I rolled up my first character I had 3 dice, 1 3x5 card, and a pencil with an eraser. (Got a 16 Intelligence, Yay Me! Yes, I made him a magic user...and he survived).
Then there were pieces of paper. (FWIW, Men and Magic recommended a 3 ring loose leaf binder and paper).
Then there were these fancy things called character sheets.

For the first two years I played, we used pencils and erasers, and every thing we needed to know about our PC was on the front and back of a 3x5 card.

As the game got more complicated (AD&D 1e) I tended to use a sheet of graph paper (the green ones, I was engineering major) but plenty of my friends used a notebook with 8 1/2" x 11" lined paper, college rule but others had graduated to 4x6 cards.

Some of us were still using notebook paper as recently as 3.5! And the only reason I don't for 5e characters is because I lack the instinct on character sheet layout for this edition that I had developed for 3e.

Amechra

2022-03-25, 07:14 AM

Wait, people don't use 3x5 cards to write down their characters anymore? That's sad.

I tend to jot down the important stuff on an index card, then use extra dice to track resource usage (which includes health). I have reasonably small handwriting, so there tends to be plenty of space on the card (as long as I'm not building a high-level Wizard or something).

MoiMagnus

2022-03-25, 07:56 AM

Wait, people don't use 3x5 cards to write down their characters anymore? That's sad.

(Me, a European having to google what a 3x5 card is. For other peoples more used to the AN format, that's slightly longer than A7, which is 1/8 of a regular A4 page.)

... No, I don't think I've ever seen peoples use this format for character sheets.
In fact, except when using printed character sheets, I've rarely seen anyone using some specific format other than "taking whatever paper is nearby (most likely a regular A4 page from the printer) and maybe cut it in 2 or 4 pieces if it feels too big"

togapika

2022-03-25, 08:12 AM

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-25, 09:26 AM

They're publishing 5.5E for release in 2024 which presumably obsoletes the 5E PHB. You can be disappointed in any rules changes, but there's no wrongness about it. It's not the same as 3.5 replacing 3.0 due to the time interval it was done. People are upset Tasha book lied about floating ASI being optional because future publications make it not optional. Had further PC races been given fixed ASI it wouldn't have been an issue. If 5.5E then made floating ASI official for all races and updated human to compensate those who don't like it can grumble the change, but they wouldn't feel insulted by it as they do with the Tasha book. That's a fair point, but with all of the books I have for 5, I am not sure I want to do that. 5e was supposed to be evergreen, Core Plus, with a solid core (MM, DMG, PHB) and they are drifting away from that. It may be the nature of the beast, but it's frustrating as a consumer and a user.
Me, a European having to google what a 3x5 card is. Heh, when I worked in a NATO job I had to learn what A4 paper was. :smallbiggrin:

Imbalance

2022-03-25, 09:40 AM

5e starters come with easy-to-photocopy character sheets that I suppose WoTC intended to be the standard. I didn't think they were anything great, but as a greenhorn DM I made a stack of copies to use and then discovered numerous better options. We still use the dumb sheets, though, because me hates ta waste 'em, which is exactly my feelings on the physical books that I've already purchased. A lot of people keep clamoring for 'more, more, more!' and I'm here like, "I don't think I'll ever exhaust the contents of these ~dozen source books and lord knows how many adventure modules."

RogueJK

2022-03-25, 10:07 AM

I still remember in high school when we tried to use those transparency sheets for projectors for character sheets, with the thought process being that we could use transparency pens to write in stuff and then erase and reuse the sheet later.

I did something similar in 3E. Print a filled-out computerized character sheet, put it in transparent plastic sleeves, then use fine point dry erase markers on the sleeves over top of the printed character sheet to keep track of spell/ability usage, temporary bonuses, and current HP.

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-25, 10:12 AM

A lot of people keep clamoring for 'more, more, more!' and I'm here like, "I don't think I'll ever exhaust the contents of these ~dozen source books and lord knows how many adventure modules." I feel the same way. The bloat of subclasses, classes, races and spells is not value added. Additional adventures and settings would IMO add far more value.

I did something similar in 3E. Print a filled-out computerized character sheet, put it in transparent plastic sleeves, then use fine point dry erase markers on the sleeves over top of the printed character sheet to keep track of spell/ability usage, temporary bonuses, and current HP. We often used clear shelf paper on paper: pencil (No 2 or mechanical 5 mm) and eraser worked fine.

PhantomSoul

2022-03-25, 08:09 PM

I still remember in high school when we tried to use those transparency sheets for projectors for character sheets, with the thought process being that we could use transparency pens to write in stuff and then erase and reuse the sheet later.

I used them fairly recently, before all of my games were online! I'd put a transparency sheet on top of a printed character sheet so that I could easily change oft-changing info (e.g. current HP) without mucking up or wrecking the sheet over time. It's really practical -- I'd definitely recommend it! (The base sheet wasn't left contentless, though; there's something satisfying about the character's main info being in a "retired" sheet section of the character folder after dying or being retired.)

Greywander

2022-03-25, 08:32 PM

Seems a bit early to panic. So far all we have is a single Reddit post. We don't even have an official quotation from the Redditor's source.

But it's totally predictable as a move, so it totally fits all my priors on the matter.
Exactly, this isn't a one-off, it's been a consistent pattern of behavior. It's almost like an artist who redraws a piece of art and deletes the old one because the new one is "better". And then everyone who was linking to the old image has the link break.

At this point, I feel like anyone saying this (as in, the general trend) isn't happening is just lying. It's happening, it's been happening, it continues to happen, and we can all see it happening. It's just a question of whether it is a good or bad thing. I think it's mostly bad. What happened to the Evergreen policy?

That said, there are a few things that I think will end up better off, it's just that those are offset by how much is ending up worse. I do suspect the root of the problem is a new set of writers/designers who feel compelled to redo everything because they think they can do it better. They do have some advantages the original writers did not (such as tons of data on the game and how it's played), but they don't seem to have the same vision as the original writers, so the end result will be designed to meet a different goal. It's not necessarily that they're bad designers, but that they're essentially hijacking an existing system to write a very different but superficially similar system.

They're publishing 5.5E for release in 2024 which presumably obsoletes the 5E PHB. You can be disappointed in any rules changes, but there's no wrongness about it. It's not the same as 3.5 replacing 3.0 due to the time interval it was done. People are upset Tasha book lied about floating ASI being optional because future publications make it not optional. Had further PC races been given fixed ASI it wouldn't have been an issue. If 5.5E then made floating ASI official for all races and updated human to compensate those who don't like it can grumble the change, but they wouldn't feel insulted by it as they do with the Tasha book.
Exactly, they really should have waited for the so-called "5.5e" (which I think will just be 5e but with things like Tasha's floating ASIs as the default, so more like 5.1e). I've been predicting a decline for 5e in the near future, so the 2024 release had better slap or that prediction will likely come true.

Although for the reasons stated above, and because of the source linked by ProsecutorGodot, I don't give the rumor credit, murmurings about this kind of behavior should definitely promote thought in the community and make people hesitate from investing too much of their money into centralized platforms and services like D&D Beyond or Adventurer's League, or from allowing their gaming experience to become too dependent upon them.

They may be a convenience, but if you depend on them, they give a measure of power over your game to a corporation that does not care about you. D&D content becomes less and less something you buy and then own, and more and more a service to which you subscribe. We're nowhere near the point where I worry about the decentralized, pen-and-paper nature of the game dying out. But I'll never say it's impossible. Buy books printed on paper. Buy PDFs that you store on your own hard drive, and then preferably print those onto paper. Value the autonomy which makes this game great, and not just another intellectual property to be milked for cash.

This message was definitely not brought to you by a game-shop DM tired of having to argue with people about his paper-character-sheets-only rule.
This is a good post. The rumor, even if not true, is entirely believable, which already speaks volumes about the current state of D&D. If you don't like what a company is doing, whether that's WotC or DNDBeyond, don't support them financially, or they'll just keep doing it. Like Todd Howard said, he'll stop re-releasing Skyrim when we stop buying it.

The sad thing is that 5e started in a really good place and everybody loved it. Not only is it now rife with controversial changes, but more and more the original content is being overwritten by "new and improved" content that no one asked for. It wouldn't be as bad if this was just "additional" content, but WotC does seem to have made a conscious effort to erase and replace.

Pex

2022-03-25, 09:37 PM

KorvinStarmast

2022-03-26, 11:50 AM

Tanarii

2022-03-26, 12:30 PM

This message was definitely not brought to you by a game-shop DM tired of having to argue with people about his paper-character-sheets-only rule.No phones out at the table rule drives players crazy until they get used to it. :smallamused:

For the first two years I played, we used pencils and erasers, and every thing we needed to know about our PC was on the front and back of a 3x5 card.Definitely doable for oD&D through BECMI

It's not necessarily that they're bad designers, but that they're essentially hijacking an existing system to write a very different but superficially similar system.Worth noting that is exactly what Mike Mearls did with Essentials to make a testbed for his ideas to produce 5e. I was thoroughly po'd at the time. Turned out okay. We'll see if it works out again.

In my opinion, the "Evergreen" philosophy went away when they purged the workforce. Most of the original employees are gone. New crew, new philosophy; hence the continuous publications of new books. With lots of new material out there it makes sense they find a need to update the official rules with a new PHB. Whether or not you like this new direction is up to you,Don't like it, but it's against forum rules to even obliquely refer to why. In addition to that, the repeated backtracking on things the new development group has written about their new content being optional means I can't trust what they write.

Rynjin

2022-03-26, 02:14 PM

These "automated character building" services have always been problematic, and IMO little short of a scam. They've never been an effective replacement for the actual books, PDF or physical, so you just end up paying twice for the same book for no damn reason.

This is even besides the issue laid out here, of book updates being unilaterally shoved on people who are trying to use them as a primary source, or how the companies running them can bizarrely "set policy" for no apparent reason. I'm still salty about the Courageous weapon property in Pathfinder having its functionality completely changed due to secret communications from the HeroLab folks.

Greywander

2022-03-27, 01:02 PM

In my opinion, the "Evergreen" philosophy went away when they purged the workforce. Most of the original employees are gone. New crew, new philosophy; hence the continuous publications of new books. With lots of new material out there it makes sense they find a need to update the official rules with a new PHB. Whether or not you like this new direction is up to you,
New PHB makes sense, I'd probably be more hyped for it if I actually liked the changes they were making to the game. What I'm more against are the retroactive changes to existing books. With a new book, the old book is at least still available. Yes, you can always use an old printing, but that won't always be an option if you're using a digital source such as DNDBeyond, and an "outdated" printing might be rejected by a DM who doesn't consider it to be RAW any longer.

Case in point, despite the issues it had, I much prefer the original printing of Booming Blade. Not only did they print an updated version in Tasha's, but apparently they saw fit to retroactively change the SCAG version to match Tasha's. The original version was perfectly functional, while I find Tasha's version to be actually broken, not as in strong, but as in it doesn't work as intended (e.g. Shadow Blade, psychic blades, natural weapons, etc.). But now the original version is no longer RAW, and while I can ask my DM, I have to default to assuming it won't be allowed unless the DM says otherwise.

@Greywander: mostly agree with the points you raise.
I think that the floating ASI's at chargen will probably not bother people so much, but the "make a custom race" needs to stay as optional or just go away.
On the other hand, making up a custom origin/race does open up a lot of room for a DM and a Player to create something very special and unique. The trick is both balance and getting the 'this origin/racial feature is worth this much' figured out to a much better degree than the original PHB racial features scheme did.
Not to toot my own horn, but I really like my Simple Custom Race (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636942-Simple-Custom-Race). Probably the best homebrew I've ever made. But I don't think I'd want it to be an official option. It's simple, elegant, and straightforward, but it accomplishes that by not pretending to be balanced. It relies on the player to not build something that is too weak or too strong, and on the DM to inspect it before giving their approval. As homebrew, it carries an implicit requirement for DM approval, whereas if it were RAW then it would be implied to be allowed by default (see how many people just assume feats or multiclassing or variant humans are allowed).

Honestly, I think this is the best option for a custom race. Making an actual build-a-race system where you score each and every trait would be a huge amount of effort and would necessarily be flawed, either due to giving wrong scores or not anticipating trait interactions. People have already tried to do this with things like the Musicus system or Detect Balance, and all of these systems have ended up with people not agreeing with how one trait or another is scored, or how two or more traits interact and should thus affect the scoring. If you want something that is both functional and balanced, you're going to need a system that ends up looking a lot more like GURPS than D&D. I could maybe see a custom race building system getting published in its own book, but definitely not in the base PHB or even the DMG. It would need at least an entire chapter dedicated to all the different traits, their scores, and interactions, and possibly more. It probably wouldn't be enough to take up an entire book, though, so if it got its own book then you'd like see other things in that book as well, such as a custom monster builder, or custom spell builder, and so on.

Witty Username

2022-03-27, 01:26 PM

All I can really say is, where was all this vitriol when healing spirit got banned?

Greywander

2022-03-27, 02:27 PM

All I can really say is, where was all this vitriol when healing spirit got banned?
It's probably because almost everyone agreed that Healing Spirit needed to be changed. The writing team can't predict every way a piece of content might be exploited, but there are a few basic checks they can do to identify potential exploits, not the least of which is abusing the action economy to trigger an effect more than once over a single round. It shouldn't have been published the way it was.

It's like the difference between posting a comment and then realizing your quote block broke because you accidentally deleted one of the square brackets (e.g. [QUOTE=Witty Username;25409349All I can really say is, where was all this vitriol when healing spirit got banned?[/QUOTE]), so you make a quick edit to fix it. Versus posting a comment, then a month later editing your comment to say something completely different. If you want to say something different, just post a new comment, don't edit the old one.

Psyren

2022-03-27, 03:20 PM

What exactly is wrong with them no longer selling old content? If you already own it, of course you can still use it, but they're under no obligation to keep making new instances of it. We saw this before when they stopped printing 3.0 stuff like the Psionics Handbook or Sword and Fist, I don't see how this is any different or more newsworthy.

I dispute that that would be “better”. Who is it better for and by what metrics? How would that be more consistent exactly? Now you have 5.5 and 5 and a handful of conflicting versions of things all at once. How does that make these confused new players of yours lives easier? How does it make these confused DMs juggling versions suddenly have a clear answer?

Chill out. Let them try their best and when the dust settles you can look back and see what worked and what didn’t. You’re not going to change anything about their plans by shouting into the void about rumours and theoretical confusion.

(I’m labouring under the impression 5.5 is supposed to be backwards compatible because that’s the last I heard - I don’t follow this stuff closely)

If they do this now and they get pushback and all these confused players wanting the old material they can course correct. If they wait until they drop a major change and then they realise people want the old stuff too then it may be too late at that point.

This. And furthermore, waiting until 2024 to explore any kind of design shift isn't just terrible from a business perspective (you can't seriously ask them to make nothing but APs for 4 years), it's bad from a game design perspective too. There's no way that even a 4-year long playtest could give them the same kind of data, eyeballs and interest that a release does. I'd rather they use the time until 5.5e to iterate and refine that design, than simply trust that 4 years of radio silence followed by radically different race/subclass/monster design (at a minimum) is going to result in a superior product. It won't.

Not just the autonomy, but the reliability of the product: your character (and the monsters) were created and allowed based on how they worked at the start of the character (with any applicable house rules, homebrew or whatever). A product retroactively changing means that you no longer know how to play your character for any changes, there's now an asymmetry in expectations vs. mechanics, AND these is neither the character mechanics that you chose to play nor the ones that were allowed for play. And you won't know it until you check some detail and suddenly it doesn't work how you thought -- and you might not even realise it's not you (or your DM) who has a faulty memory, but your product that was changed without your consent regardless of the product you payed for. /rant

Anyone using DDB books DID consent, by agreeing to the terms of service when they signed up. And I find this concern very overblown - it's not like D&D is a videogame where all these mechanics are squirreled away in code that you need datamining to access. Not only are any language updates plainly visible on your sheet, there are tons of 5e youtubers, handbook writers and streamers with nothing better to do than dissect every single change in fine detail. And if even after all that the player (or even DM) doesn't notice a particular change - just correct them and move on, the world will keep turning I promise.

Every major change comes with bad will; I don't see anything particularly egregious about this. It's a reasonable change, and folks who are buying multiple books know they can rewrite as desired.

Agreed.

I'm running an Esper Genesis game now, and the friggin' grumbling when my players realized D&D Beyond didn't support third-party content...ugh.

It actually does, you just might have to finagle a bit with the "homebrew" section.

Telok

2022-03-27, 04:10 PM

Anyone using DDB books DID consent, by agreeing to the terms of service when they signed up. And I find this concern very overblown - it's not like D&D is a videogame where all these mechanics are squirreled away in code that you need datamining to access. Not only are any language updates plainly visible on your sheet...

There was a recent DDB change I noticed that never seemed to make any news. Its a silly one, but interesting. Elephants exist under "equipment". Previously I'd noticed they didn't have any stats or effects there except cost, so I put a couple in a spell component pouch and forgot about them. Sometime in the last couple weeks it changed and elephants are now a zero weight "container" that you can "equip" , holds 1320 lbs., and cannot be put inside another container. Didn't notice any announcements, just stumbled across the character inventory page having been changed on me.

Generally when writing application update messages at work I'll skip mentioning the backend stuff that users can't see. But I know I'd get a reprimand for skipping something that changed previously entered information. But then my applications are almost purely internal to the organization and I don't get to write "sign your rights away & not allowed to complain about it" EULAs.

Just a minor note.

Tanarii

2022-03-27, 05:17 PM

All I can really say is, where was all this vitriol when healing spirit got banned?
The vitriol was when it got published.
Just like Tasha's
And this yet to be published book,

Psyren

2022-03-27, 05:27 PM

There was a recent DDB change I noticed that never seemed to make any news. Its a silly one, but interesting. Elephants exist under "equipment". Previously I'd noticed they didn't have any stats or effects there except cost, so I put a couple in a spell component pouch and forgot about them. Sometime in the last couple weeks it changed and elephants are now a zero weight "container" that you can "equip" , holds 1320 lbs., and cannot be put inside another container. Didn't notice any announcements, just stumbled across the character inventory page having been changed on me.

Generally when writing application update messages at work I'll skip mentioning the backend stuff that users can't see. But I know I'd get a reprimand for skipping something that changed previously entered information. But then my applications are almost purely internal to the organization and I don't get to write "sign your rights away & not allowed to complain about it" EULAs.

Just a minor note.

While I can see how the elephants you put in your component pouch might have escaped the notice of folks who typically highlight 5e changes, I'd probably file that under "corner case."

P. G. Macer

2022-05-10, 09:40 AM

(Note to Mods: By my count, it has been 44 days since there was last a post in this thread, so this is just within the bounds of not being thread necromancy)

D&D Beyond has updated its FAQ about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://support.dndbeyond.com/hc/en-us/articles/4815683858327), confirming that Volo’s and MToF will be unavailable for purchase on D&D Beyond a week from today, on May 17.

According to the very same FAQ, they will not be removing VGtM or MToF content one has already bought.

diplomancer

2022-05-10, 09:53 AM

(Note to Mods: By my count, it has been 44 days since there was last a post in this thread, so this is just within the bounds of not being thread necromancy)

It's Revivify, not Raise Dead. :)

D&D Beyond has updated its FAQ about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://support.dndbeyond.com/hc/en-us/articles/4815683858327), confirming that Volo’s and MToF will be unavailable for purchase on D&D Beyond a week from today, on May 17.

According to the very same FAQ, they will not be removing VGtM or MToF content one has already bought.

And they also confirm that if you have the old books, and buy the new book, you will have both versions of the races/monsters, which is a relief. Let's wait and see how they are going to differentiate between the two versions.

KorvinStarmast

2022-05-10, 10:02 AM

Psyren

2022-05-10, 10:06 AM

Both types of goblin/hobgoblin are valid. The MPMM/MotM ones are the ones capable of being PC adventurers.

diplomancer

2022-05-10, 10:13 AM

Both types of goblin/hobgoblin are valid. The MPMM/MotM ones are the ones capable of being PC adventurers.

Since you will still be able to play a Volo's goblin PC, this is not true.

Psyren

2022-05-10, 10:21 AM

Since you will still be able to play a Volo's goblin PC, this is not true.

You'd be able to by dint of your DM allowing that deprecated book. They will not be the ones selling it to you after the cutoff. There's a difference between the world your DM creates and the one they're implying with baseline sources.

strangebloke

2022-05-10, 10:42 AM

I don't even mind the new versions of the races, but this is a damn shame. Volo's as a book has issues, and no doubt part of their motivation is sweeping some of that under the rug, but it had a lot of stuff I genuinely love like the giants. And MTOF was a good book.

But that whole side tangent about "volo's is problematic" is clearly just a smokescreen for what WotC is actually doing here. They make noise about getting rid of unfortunate implications, they make noise about 'making caster npcs easier to run' but in reality this is all very clearly planned obsolescence. They want to make a new standard that supersedes the old one. New DMs and players who get into the scene won't have access to MTOF, so if you show up to their table wanting to play, say, a bugbear or an eladrin, you have to play the new version, which means your old book is worthless, which means you have to get the new book.

Well, obviously don't have to, but this is the plan. And people who think I'm nuts here needs to pay attention to how release cycles work in every other form of digital media. Its also no coincidence that this new book (and tasha's) have massive amounts of power creep.

diplomancer

2022-05-10, 11:34 AM

You'd be able to by dint of your DM allowing that deprecated book. They will not be the ones selling it to you after the cutoff. There's a difference between the world your DM creates and the one they're implying with baseline sources.

I guess they will be unnoficial material for the entirety of one day, the 17th of May. Once 18th comes around and D&D Beyond becomes part of WotC, since they will be available as character options on D&D Beyond, they will then be official again.

So yes, if I want my goblin PC to be an old school goblin, it will be an old school Goblin PC, because that will still be an option for goblins that are PCs.

It's alright if you want that to be your explanation for, say, goblinoids, in your game, but I doubt that WotC will want to make that connection explicitly; (some) Goblinoids now have Fey Ancestry. If PCs are special, and only those Goblinoids with Fey Ancestry can be PCs, it would seem that there are some traits that make you special that are wholly dependent on your ancestry. I wonder if goblinoids will have a caste system based on their ancestry now...

Psyren

2022-05-10, 11:41 AM

So yes, if I want my goblin PC to be an old school goblin, it will be an old school Goblin PC, because that will still be an option for goblins that are PCs.

I never said you couldn't :smalltongue: it's your DM's choice to use that book, just like it's WotC's choice to continue selling it to new DMs or not.

Hell, you could probably homebrew in the light sensitivity onto your Kobold PC if you want and the old version isn't available anymore.

diplomancer

2022-05-10, 11:47 AM

I never said you couldn't :smalltongue: it's your DM's choice to use that book, just like it's WotC's choice to continue selling it to new DMs or not.

Hell, you could probably homebrew in the light sensitivity onto your Kobold PC if you want and the old version isn't available anymore.

Just to clarify. What I am disputing here is this sentence:

"The MPMM/MotM ones are the ones capable of being PC adventurers."

Has WotC come out and said this, or is it your interpretation of what they are doing? I can go with "these are Goblinoids now, forget old Goblinoids". And I can go with "there are different variants of goblinoids". But "only goblinoids with Fey Ancestry can be PCs" I find quite extraordinary. "Sorry, you don't have Fey Ancestry, so you don't get to be a PC adventurer".

Psyren

2022-05-10, 12:03 PM

Just to clarify. What I am disputing here is this sentence:

"The MPMM/MotM ones are the ones capable of being PC adventurers."

Has WotC come out and said this, or is it your interpretation of what they are doing? I can go with "these are Goblinoids now, forget old Goblinoids". And I can go with "there are different variants of goblinoids". But "only goblinoids with Fey Ancestry can be PCs" I find quite extraordinary. "Sorry, you don't have Fey Ancestry, so you don't get to be a PC adventurer".

I think what WotC is saying is "you can use the old books if you own them, but our intent is that you use the newest ones, which is why we're making the old ones unavailable for purchase going forward." And the implication of that is "the MPMM goblins/kobolds/etc are the ones we're steering players toward."

This is not to say that non-fey Goblins can't be PCs, just like they could before Volo's existed - but doing so is a DM choice to bring them in rather than the expected version.

Jervis

2022-05-10, 01:23 PM

That first paragraph is gold. And the blue bit is...OOF. A big DM mood.

I'm running an Esper Genesis game now, and the friggin' grumbling when my players realized D&D Beyond didn't support third-party content...ugh.

Dnd beyond is a serious crutch imo. I personally use digital character sheets but it’s more form fill sheets than a web based one. It perpetuates bad player habits and isn’t friendly to people using third party stuff

RSP

2022-05-10, 01:32 PM

Reddit thread (unsubstatiated except in a twitch stream I can't be bothered to watch through for this, so take it with a grain of salt): https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/tmp4nu/after_the_release_of_mordenkainen_presents/

Well. Who could have seen that coming? Optional stuff that wasn't optional after all? You will "upgrade", whether you want to or not. Because any new players won't have access to either of those books in their original format, which means that new groups forming will have to default to the new format. As likely will AL.

I figure all the new stuff will be the standard rules in the 2024 update anyway. Phasing it out over a year or two doesn’t really impact the game that much.

As for non-optional optional stuff, remember how JC’s tweeted the new Bladesinger was optional and you could choose either the new version or the original SCAG version; then they went ahead and deleted the original version via “errata”? None of this is new territory for WotC.

Jervis

2022-05-10, 01:52 PM

I figure all the new stuff will be the standard rules in the 2024 update anyway. Phasing it out over a year or two doesn’t really impact the game that much.

As for non-optional optional stuff, remember how JC’s tweeted the new Bladesinger was optional and you could choose either the new version or the original SCAG version; then they went ahead and deleted the original version via “errata”? None of this is new territory for WotC.

This is honestly kind of upsetting. I understand wanting to streamline things but a lot of races just got way worse in the new printing. Kobolds and Githyanki for example. Yeah they bot got something but Githyanki were one of only two ways to get medium armor as a race and Kobolds, well, they’re just fun

Psyren

2022-05-10, 01:55 PM

This is honestly kind of upsetting. I understand wanting to streamline things but a lot of races just got way worse in the new printing. Kobolds and Githyanki for example. Yeah they bot got something but Githyanki were one of only two ways to get medium armor as a race and Kobolds, well, they’re just fun

You can houserule racial armor proficiency back in though, even in DDB.

I guess I'm at a loss for understanding any position which starts from "the designers shouldn't be allowed to update the default game." So long as they provide you the tools to undo their changes at your individual table - which, you know, they have - what exactly is the issue?

RSP

2022-05-10, 02:04 PM

So long as they provide you the tools to undo their changes at your individual table - which, you know, they have - what exactly is the issue?

I’m not sure this is true, as officially, there is no original SCAG Bladesinger. It’s been “clarified or corrected” into the new Bladesinger.

Jervis

2022-05-10, 02:14 PM

You can houserule racial armor proficiency back in though, even in DDB.

I guess I'm at a loss for understanding any position which starts from "the designers shouldn't be allowed to update the default game." So long as they provide you the tools to undo their changes at your individual table - which, you know, they have - what exactly is the issue?

I come from a background with a lot of organized play environments, mostly 3.5 where errata is a big deal. People that say you can just change it need to understand something. The average table runs the game as written with minimal homebrew and rules alterations. So majorly changing something is a big deal. Especially when they make something worse for no reason and effectively scrub the previous option from official content. Yes you can change anything you want at your table specifically but that is no defense of a bad change.

Greywander

2022-05-10, 02:19 PM

I guess I'm at a loss for understanding any position which starts from "the designers shouldn't be allowed to update the default game."
If your system requires homebrew fix, it's not a good system.

People aren't complaining (as much) about the addition of new options, they're complaining about the removal of existing options. The only reason to replace an existing option with a new one is if the existing option was bad and the new one is better. Obviously, there are a good chunk of people who don't feel like the content being replaced was bad, and there is a legitimate question of why both options couldn't exist side by side. No one is forcing WotC to replace existing options, they chose to do that when they didn't have to.

It's like it Windows installs an update that removes functionality, and I have to download a third party app that will do the same thing instead. The existence of a third party app in no way absolves Windows of pushing an update that removes functionality.

Psyren

2022-05-10, 02:52 PM

I’m not sure this is true, as officially, there is no original SCAG Bladesinger. It’s been “clarified or corrected” into the new Bladesinger.

What is the difference, and is it impossible for you and your DM to bring back in using DDB?

If we're talking about sanctioned play like AL, they're well within their rights to completely ban an older version of anything they want.

I come from a background with a lot of organized play environments, mostly 3.5 where errata is a big deal. People that say you can just change it need to understand something. The average table runs the game as written with minimal homebrew and rules alterations. So majorly changing something is a big deal. Especially when they make something worse for no reason and effectively scrub the previous option from official content. Yes you can change anything you want at your table specifically but that is no defense of a bad change.

I never said it wasn't a big deal, but it's a change they clearly wanted to make. If your DM is so inflexible that they refuse to use an older version you prefer no matter what your wishes are as their player and friend, that's hardly WotC's fault.

If your system requires homebrew fix, it's not a good system.

I don't view reverting back to an outdated version of a rules element as "a homebrew fix." In fact it's the opposite, you're unfixing something due to your own desires and expecting WotC to bend over backwards to accommodate that. They've already provided the tools that allow you to make those changes in your game, on top of allowing your superseded books to continue functioning on their platform, and that is where their obligation to your table ends.

It's like it Windows installs an update that removes functionality, and I have to download a third party app that will do the same thing instead. The existence of a third party app in no way absolves Windows of pushing an update that removes functionality.

First of all, no functionality has been removed - if you have Volo's in your DDB, you can continue using the options from it.

Second, even if they had - are you saying that Microsoft should be forced to support every single bit of functionality they've ever come up with into perpetuity? If we're not able to command Clippy to interact with Cortana via our Kinect, have they somehow failed you?

strangebloke

2022-05-10, 02:56 PM

I don't view reverting back to an outdated version of a rules element as "a homebrew fix." In fact it's the opposite, you're unfixing something due to your own desires and expecting WotC to bend over backwards to accommodate that. They've already provided the tools that allow you to make those changes in your game, on top of allowing your superseded books to continue functioning on their platform, and that is where their obligation to your table ends.

First of all, no functionality has been removed - if you have Volo's in your DDB, you can continue using the options from it.

Second, even if they had - are you saying that Microsoft should be forced to support every single bit of functionality they've ever come up with into perpetuity? If we're not able to command Clippy to interact with Cortana via our Kinect, have they somehow failed you?

Keeping MTOF on the store would not be "bending over backwards," it would be "allowing someone to pay them money for a service that costs them nothing to provide." MTOF is a pdf not a piece of software.

It's just basic exploitative artificial scarcity that they're doing for no other reason than profit. This does not serve the consumer's interest, and it isn't as though they're a small or unprofitable company that needs to do this. There's no reason to argue on behalf of a massively profitable company; I'm sure they'll be fine.

Psyren

2022-05-10, 03:00 PM

Keeping MTOF on the store would not be "bending over backwards," it would be "allowing someone to pay them money for a service that costs them nothing to provide." MTOF is a pdf not a piece of software.

It's just basic exploitative artificial scarcity that they're doing for no other reason than profit. This does not serve the consumer's interest, and it isn't as though they're a small or unprofitable company that needs to do this. There's no reason to aggressively shill for a massively profitable company; I'm sure they'll be fine.

The cost of officially supporting an outmoded design philosophy is not limited to merely continuing to make the digital content available for purchase. And I'll thank you to not call me names either.

strangebloke

2022-05-10, 03:10 PM

The cost of officially supporting an outmoded design philosophy is not limited to merely continuing to make the digital content available for purchase. And I'll thank you to not call me names either.

What cost is incurred by allowing people to buy MTOF? You've referenced this a lot, but I'm completely unaware what you're referring to.

And I apologize, I don't think you're insincere. I'll edit that out. But removing digital products from an online store is a well-documented corporate practice that is purely done to force people to buy newer products, or panic-buy the old products.

Keravath

2022-05-10, 03:15 PM

Look at AL. One of the following will be true:
1. DMs will have to deal with parties composed of people using (potentially) both variants, even though they only have access to one source. That's not confusing.
2. AL will have to say that only the new variant is legal. Now all those old characters are no longer valid and can't be played.

Or any "DM has been playing for a while, player hasn't" or vice versa situation. Now you've got two sources in play, of which each person only has one. Unless the party standardizes (which locks out a lot of content). And there's going to be confusion. And worlds that no longer work (because they use the old lore and someone uses the new printing or vice versa).

Am I thinking this is the worst thing ever? No. It's just one more crack in the dam, a signal of bad management. They had a better way of doing this, and didn't. Any resulting issues are entirely on them.

I personally have no idea how this will work out in AL.

However, the rule in AL has always been (in the past) that the most recently published version of something is the version that is used. So when blade singers were introduced in Tasha's those rules took precedence over SCAG for AL play. Similarly, when other archetypes were published in Xanathars (eg swashbuckler) - the Xanathar's rules for those took precedence over the SCAG publication.

If the new books get adopted or plan to be used in AL then the odds are reasonable that the latest version of races will likely take precedence over previously published versions. It is possible that AL will decide to allow both, however, for the most part, many of the playable race changes were made to address balance or power issues (e.g. Yuan-ti Pureblood poison immunity and magic resistance) ... some were "nerfed" while others were improved from what I understand. If AL decides to go with the most recently published rule there will be vocal complaints from some while others just go along since it is still D&D and really isn't that big a deal to them.

Home games are likely to ignore the changes if they already have characters in play (assuming the DM actually allowed someone to play a Yuan-ti Pureblood) while other DMs may allow folks to choose the revised races if they think they are better balanced.

D&D Beyond has already said that folks with Volo's or MtoF will have access to both versions of the source material - probably pretty much the same as owning SCAG and Xanathar's or Tasha's for the replicated content. In addition, they still sell SCAG so it seems likely that they might continue to sell Volo's and MtoF too - unless there is 100% overlap in content.

Anyway, it seems a bit too early to panic about something that we individually have very little control over.

Psyren

2022-05-10, 03:28 PM

What cost is incurred by allowing people to buy MTOF? You've referenced this a lot, but I'm completely unaware what you're referring to.

And I apologize, I don't think you're insincere. I'll edit that out. But removing digital products from an online store is a well-documented corporate practice that is purely done to force people to buy newer products, or panic-buy the old products.

Because leaving the old books on equal footing with the new sends the erroneous message that both design philosophies are officially sanctioned. One flat out no longer is. The designers have clearly articulated (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw), not only their reasons for the changes they've made, but also the drawbacks to the old design - the "mistaken impressions" and "outsize impact" those old versions have had on players. So to then say "but who cares, buy whatever you want" rather than taking a principled stand - would be wishy-washy at best.

And they almost certainly have lost customers by taking this stance, some of which have even self-declared in this very thread. So to cynically proclaim that this is nothing but a cash-grab is not a position I can agree with.

Note that I'm not defending the way they released MPMM - in an expensive bundle with a big delay before the digital release - that was absolutely a cash-grab. But they seem to also have learned their lesson on that, judging by the Spelljammer stuff, which is all new material and all of which is being made available in both physical and DDB form simultaneously. I'm willing to chalk up the MPMM bundle thing as an anomaly while they were in the process of getting ready to buy out DDB behind the scenes.

strangebloke

2022-05-10, 03:50 PM

And they almost certainly have lost customers by taking this stance, some of which have even self-declared in this very thread. So to cynically proclaim that this is nothing but a cash-grab is not a position I can agree with.

Note that I'm not defending the way they released MPMM - in an expensive bundle with a big delay before the digital release - that was absolutely a cash-grab. But they seem to also have learned their lesson on that, judging by the Spelljammer stuff, which is all new material and all of which is being made available in both physical and DDB form simultaneously. I'm willing to chalk up the MPMM bundle thing as an anomaly while they were in the process of getting ready to buy out DDB behind the scenes.

They've proven to cashgrabbers before, and the practice is one cashgrabbers employ. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and the 'justification' they release is just PR. This is no different from nintendo closing off sales of classic games, only re-release them later in special products.

Leaving it on the store costs them nothing.

Psyren

2022-05-10, 03:59 PM

They've proven to cashgrabbers before, and the practice is one cashgrabbers employ. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and the 'justification' they release is just PR. This is no different from nintendo closing off sales of classic games, only re-release them later in special products.

Leaving it on the store costs them nothing.

I think it's possible to criticize some behaviors (the bundle thing) while also acknowledging the positives (streamlined experience / product line / design philosophy for newcomers.)

I certainly can't do anything about a rigidly cynical outlook on this move - but the good news is, I don't have to.

MadBear

2022-05-10, 04:01 PM

I honestly don't see this as being any kind of real problem, and instead feels more like faux outrage in search of a problem.

Tanarii

2022-05-10, 06:05 PM

I come from a background with a lot of organized play environments, mostly 3.5 where errata is a big deal. People that say you can just change it need to understand something. The average table runs the game as written with minimal homebrew and rules alterations. So majorly changing something is a big deal. Especially when they make something worse for no reason and effectively scrub the previous option from official content. Yes you can change anything you want at your table specifically but that is no defense of a bad change.
Also there's the fact that Wotc and the Devs said they this edition's PHB would be evergreen.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-10, 06:50 PM

Also there's the fact that Wotc and the Devs said they this edition's PHB would be evergreen.

And they used that as the explicit reason that they weren't going to "fix" the ranger and sorcerer. And haven't said "yeah, we said that and then realized it wouldn't work" but are pretending that they haven't lied. Which makes it worse imo.

Quietus

2022-05-10, 07:01 PM

Look at AL. One of the following will be true:
1. DMs will have to deal with parties composed of people using (potentially) both variants, even though they only have access to one source. That's not confusing.
2. AL will have to say that only the new variant is legal. Now all those old characters are no longer valid and can't be played.

I personally have no idea how this will work out in AL.

However, the rule in AL has always been (in the past) that the most recently published version of something is the version that is used. So when blade singers were introduced in Tasha's those rules took precedence over SCAG for AL play. Similarly, when other archetypes were published in Xanathars (eg swashbuckler) - the Xanathar's rules for those took precedence over the SCAG publication.

If the new books get adopted or plan to be used in AL then the odds are reasonable that the latest version of races will likely take precedence over previously published versions. It is possible that AL will decide to allow both, however, for the most part, many of the playable race changes were made to address balance or power issues (e.g. Yuan-ti Pureblood poison immunity and magic resistance) ... some were "nerfed" while others were improved from what I understand. If AL decides to go with the most recently published rule there will be vocal complaints from some while others just go along since it is still D&D and really isn't that big a deal to them.

In fairness, Keravath, the errata to SCAG making its Bladesinger identical to the one in Tasha's, came into play at the same time Tasha's was added to the allowed material for AL. So in the moment that happened, both versions were otherwise identical anyway. This situation - barring the possibility that they announce all Monsters of the Multiverse material to be errata against old versions - is a new one to the AL ecosystem.

I would wager that AL will take its queues from DDB. I expect that as long as both options are made available there, both options will be available in AL, once AL guidance is updated to allow MotM races in general. I believe that all three entities - D&D, DDB, and AL - are currently owned and managed by WotC? If so, I see no reason that one group would run differently from the other. They want a more homogenized community, all running by the same rules, because that's an easier community to reach out to, and to monetize.

Witty Username

2022-05-10, 08:20 PM

Psyren

2022-05-10, 08:33 PM

I honestly don't see this as being any kind of real problem, and instead feels more like faux outrage in search of a problem.

Aren't the issues being discussed here applicable to any form of Errata?

I mean I feel for you but WOTC has been doing this since the beginning. Ever since monk could water whip as a bonus action, we have been losing stuff that people have been feeling was better off "unfixed."

It's a lot of melodrama.

Also there's the fact that Wotc and the Devs said they this edition's PHB would be evergreen.

So is the expectation that they should not be allowed to release an updated PHB?

Dork_Forge

2022-05-10, 09:20 PM

Aren't the issues being discussed here applicable to any form of Errata?

I mean I feel for you but WOTC has been doing this since the beginning. Ever since monk could water whip as a bonus action, we have been losing stuff that people have been feeling was better off "unfixed."

This is a little different, for two reasons IMO:

1) Scale - The sheer amount that they have changed goes beyond any simple errata, both in content and impact on the game.

2) Purpose - Errata was meant to clarify rules and wording primarily, and on the odd occasion change things for balance reasons. What they are doing is a massive retroactive change based on changing design principles. Principles that have a mixed, cloudy purpose and leave the game fragmented by the very nature of what they're doing. Errata is updated printings and updated online copies, publishing a whole new book with changes is not simply errata, it's the horrible love child of errata and bloat.

It's a lot of melodrama.

Fundamental changes to a game you enjoy, that can drastically alter something digital you already paid for is not melodrama, it's a valid concern and criticism of their current practice.

Just because players can run around and make their own versions doesn't justify what's happening, and it's okay that not everyone is as willing to roll with the punches as you are. Many people wouldn't be able to express these feelings elsewhere and forums are fundamentally for discussions like this, referring to it as melodrama is derogatory to their concerns and doesn't seem to gel with how you responded to someone referring to your own response on the matter up thread.

So is the expectation that they should not be allowed to release an updated PHB?

I think the point is that they should honour the promises they made when they were selling all those books 8 years ago.

Jervis

2022-05-10, 09:36 PM

Because leaving the old books on equal footing with the new sends the erroneous message that both design philosophies are officially sanctioned. One flat out no longer is. The designers have clearly articulated (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw), not only their reasons for the changes they've made, but also the drawbacks to the old design - the "mistaken impressions" and "outsize impact" those old versions have had on players. So to then say "but who cares, buy whatever you want" rather than taking a principled stand - would be wishy-washy at best.

And they almost certainly have lost customers by taking this stance, some of which have even self-declared in this very thread. So to cynically proclaim that this is nothing but a cash-grab is not a position I can agree with.

Note that I'm not defending the way they released MPMM - in an expensive bundle with a big delay before the digital release - that was absolutely a cash-grab. But they seem to also have learned their lesson on that, judging by the Spelljammer stuff, which is all new material and all of which is being made available in both physical and DDB form simultaneously. I'm willing to chalk up the MPMM bundle thing as an anomaly while they were in the process of getting ready to buy out DDB behind the scenes.

You see the problem is this is backhanded errata. Honestly this is arguably worse than just errata text, removing the books from their storefront is media destruction. Yes you can use your physical copies or pdfs you have saved, but look at video games, look at how playstations with PT sell for absurd amounts of money because you just can't get it legally any more. You can say that 5e isn't in any danger of becoming lost media, but just recently WotC took down their web archives of 3.5 content, and if it wasn't for the fact that 3.5 has a still somewhat active fan base that archives everything, that would have become lost media. Yeah this sort of stuff might not seem like a big deal but ten or twenty years down the line when 7e is out and 5e has a dwindling fan base, and those they decide to stop printing those books then all you'll have are pdfs and existing hardcovers. Thats why i make a big deal about this sort of thing beyond just the big changes to previously printed content. If it's about making a statement you can do that with a tweet and a blurb about game balance in the newer book.

And since i see an argument about companies hosting content that's no longer supported, all i'll say is that you can, for the moment at least, still buy 3.5 books, just not the stuff WotC hosted themselves. I also have... unconventional opinions on IP law and i would rather not risk getting into possibly political grounds with this. So thats not something i want to engage with.

Witty Username

2022-05-10, 10:21 PM

Most of this just comes with the territory of digital media. Take video games, I bet most of us haven't even played a game that wasn't updated from the original version for any number of reasons.
D&D beyond provides access to content, not ownership. Heck, one of the advantages of digital media is errata is easy to deliver straight to the consumer. Want a new healing spirit, there you go. But that that comes with changes that you neither ask for or want, healing spirit is deleted from your book, not even with an announcement.

Arguably releasing a book than applying errata later is the more consumer friendly version. Did it get positive reviews, get out the errata, did it do poorly, let the book fade into the niche market. Assuming anyone at wotc has a brain, which may be a tall ask.

Greywander

2022-05-10, 11:19 PM

It's a lot of melodrama.
I... don't want to read something into what you wrote that isn't there, but this just sounds incredibly dismissive. Even if we disagree, can't you at least understand where we're coming from, or why we think these things are important?

So is the expectation that they should not be allowed to release an updated PHB?
No, they shouldn't be allowed. That's what the Evergreen policy means. They can add new content, but they can't overwrite previously released content, and least of all the three core books.

Now, as far as errata, I think most people are fine with things like "oops, we made a typo" or "there's an unexpected interaction that breaks the game" or "yeah, we just didn't think this ability through". Basically, if a mistake was made, then fixing that mistake is generally seen as okay. Changing your mind and deciding to rewrite a piece of content is not fixing a mistake, and is not what errata is meant for. If they want to do that, they should release it as new, alternative content. Speaking of...

If they really want to update the PHB, they should release a new PHB, e.g. the PHB 2. Which they are, in fact, doing. That's the fabled "5.5e" that's coming in 2024. This way, both the original and the new can coexist side-by-side. And they can then choose to stop putting out content compatible with the old PHB and only release content compatible with the new PHB. That's basically what a new edition is.

Aren't the issues being discussed here applicable to any form of Errata?

I mean I feel for you but WOTC has been doing this since the beginning. Ever since monk could water whip as a bonus action, we have been losing stuff that people have been feeling was better off "unfixed."
A lot of people, myself included, have mixed feelings on a lot of errata. Does it make the game better? That's the question, and different people will have different opinions on what makes the game better. Almost everyone agrees that Healing Spirit was just poorly written, for example, but not everyone agrees with the specific fix they implemented. One thing I'm still salty about is ammunition weapons needing a free hand to reload. I just feel like it negates the entire point of one-handed ranged weapons. I agree that Crossbow Expert with a shield would be mechanically broken, but in my mind the issue there is Crossbow Expert, not using a hand crossbow with a shield.

As I said above, errata should be reserved for fixing mistakes. I can understand, for example, that ammunition weapons were always meant to need a free hand to reload, and they just forgot to write it down. I may not like it, but at least it makes sense for errata. But what they've done here is completely rewrite content. That's not errata.

Now that I think about it, I'm reminded of the original Star Wars trilogy, which George Lucas made a number of additions and changes to over the years. One the one hand, you had Lucas doing his best to insure that only the most up-to-date version was available, and on the other hand you had people taking the highest quality HD version and "demastering" them to restore them to their original state, just with higher video/audio quality. People mostly hated the changes Lucas made.

Most of this just comes with the territory of digital media. Take video games,
Yeah, let's look at video games. How upset were people when Dark Souls Remastered came out and Prepare to Die was removed from the store? Or how about the Grand Theft Auto 3 trilogy? Are you really surprised that the people who are seeing 5e turn into a "crappy remaster" aren't happy that the originals are being removed from sale?

Contrast this with Age of Empires 2. The Definitive Edition has been very well received, even though they've made some big changes to existing content. There's still a sense that the developers understand the game and are keeping new content in line with the original vision. But just in case, the HD version is still available on the Steam store.

Point being that removing the originals from sale is a hallmark of a crappy remake. It's a sign that the new content will have to compete with the old content, and the company producing that content isn't confident that the new content will succeed. It's rather pathetic, if you think about it. They're basically getting beat by a past version of themselves, which does not bode well for the company's future.

Or, imagine if you will that you've purchased DLC for a game, and then the company updates the game in such a way that breaks the DLC. You complain, but the company just tells you tough beans, the DLC is depricated. But, you can instead buy this brand new DLC that they just released instead. Would you ever buy a game from such a company again?

Tanarii

2022-05-11, 12:52 AM

Most of this just comes with the territory of digital media. Take video games, I bet most of us haven't even played a game that wasn't updated from the original version for any number of reasons.
Anyone that hasn't played X-Com on a Dos emulator recently, you're missing out.
Also Alpha Centauri and Rome: Total War is still two of the best games of respective lines, and well worth playing.
Blizzard also hosted classic WoW servers because there's a demand.

I won't play Steam games, and the 4e character builder taught me not to invest in WotC owned digital media.

Volo's was one of the better books WotC released for 5e, from a DM perspective. It would make me to see them pull it because they're taking an unprincipled stand.

Of course, going back to the source ... there was no source. Looks like it was an unsubstantiated rumor.

EggKookoo

2022-05-11, 05:52 AM

Have we heard anything official that there's a specific "5.5" coming? I'm beginning to suspect we're not going to see an actual edition change. Just a gradual transformation of the game over time. "D&D Forever" or something.

Greywander

2022-05-11, 08:06 AM

Of course, going back to the source ... there was no source. Looks like it was an unsubstantiated rumor.
Whether it was an unsubstantiated rumor, an anonymous source, or pure speculation, it turned out to be true:

D&D Beyond has updated its FAQ about Monsters of the Multiverse (https://support.dndbeyond.com/hc/en-us/articles/4815683858327), confirming that Volo’s and MToF will be unavailable for purchase on D&D Beyond a week from today, on May 17.
And at the end of the day, the fact that someone could pull this out of thin air, have people believe it, and turn out to be true, speaks volumes about the state of D&D right now.

We live in a day and age where I can tell you something that would have been deemed a crazy conspiracy theory a decade or so ago, and people just nod and tacitly accept it. Why? Well, as JonTron once said, "They just started saying publicly, in front of cameras." As in, they're not even trying to hide it anymore. And that's how someone would have been able to predict this, even without a source backing it up.

Have we heard anything official that there's a specific "5.5" coming? I'm beginning to suspect we're not going to see an actual edition change. Just a gradual transformation of the game over time. "D&D Forever" or something.
This is what I and others have been saying the whole time. "5.5e" will just be a reprint of the PHB with the "optional" rules from Tasha's and elsewhere made default. This is better than just updating the existing PHB with errata, but anyone expecting more is going to be disappointed.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 08:28 AM

I think the point is that they should honour the promises they made when they were selling all those books 8 years ago.

"Companies should remain shackled to a near decade-old decision as if it were holy writ" is a quite frankly nonsensical business practice. No market stays static, not even the TTRPG hobby market.

Also, does anyone have the exact wording of this so-called "promise," as well as who specifically made it?

Whether it was an unsubstantiated rumor, an anonymous source, or pure speculation, it turned out to be true:

And at the end of the day, the fact that someone could pull this out of thin air, have people believe it, and turn out to be true, speaks volumes about the state of D&D right now.

This is exactly what I mean by drama. Who could have predicted that a company that spent time correcting a problematic design, playtesting the new design, and then publishing the new design in new products would want to steer players towards those new products? What a shocking development! In other news, why doesn't Microsoft just keep selling and supporting Windows XP in 2022? I liked it! How cruel of them!

No, they shouldn't be allowed. That's what the Evergreen policy means. They can add new content, but they can't overwrite previously released content, and least of all the three core books.

If they truly made such an overreaching promise in the way several of you believe they did, then shame on them, sure. But shame on us for believing such a thing would be possible in the modern era.

Like, believing they'll never need to make another PHB is tantamount to saying they will have created the perfect PHB. It just blows my mind that anyone would consider that possible, much less practical.

If they really want to update the PHB, they should release a new PHB, e.g. the PHB 2. Which they are, in fact, doing. That's the fabled "5.5e" that's coming in 2024. This way, both the original and the new can coexist side-by-side. And they can then choose to stop putting out content compatible with the old PHB and only release content compatible with the new PHB. That's basically what a new edition is.

But how is releasing a new PHB not a violation of this so-called "evergreen oath?" And moreover, are you all saying they're not allowed to test or release any aspects of a new design philosophy until it's time for 6e? That it should just spring fully-formed from their minds without any real feedback?

Witty Username

2022-05-11, 08:53 AM

So reading through the FAQ, the old books will not be available for purchase, but any purchases already made will still be accessible.
So this is a bit different than what is being discussed. No one is losing books, so much as books are going out of print. Which TBF was going to happen eventually.

But SCAG though? You might ask, it sounds for the FAQ they don't have any plans to do errata, at least right now. Furthermore, the tweak to bladesinger wasn't the only thing in either SCAG or Tasha's. If MOTM is applied to existing books as errata, it would run the risk of undermining the new book, and selling less books is not going to be the plan here.
So I won't expect errata, for the moment, and if we are getting a new edition in 2024 the probably won't have time to bother.

Jervis

2022-05-11, 11:39 AM

- snip -

You’re treating the game like it’s a piece of software, it isn’t. And yes, they shouldn’t be able to go back and just rewrite previous books people paid money for because current design is going in a new direction. This isn’t Microsoft not supporting an old operating system, that would be asking them to keep releasing 3.5 or 4E content, this is George Lucas releasing Star Wars delux edition and covering everything with dated CGI. They printed those books. They sold those books. You should be able to use those books as printed in organized play or home games that allow them without having to worry about them getting errataed into oblivion. Reprinting is one thing, gives more options in home games and lets you pick between books in AL, but that’s not what we’re talking about and not what’s going on.

This whole thing is the exact reason I hate dnd beyond. In four or five years when 6E or whatever comes out with a new PHB I can guarantee that they’ll be setting their support for a lot of existing books on fire with either their new dnd beyond shutting down or shifting to the new product, and the people who got those books their will get a email saying “existing 5E character sheets are getting deleted and the option to use that content in the character builder is being disabled in six months. Thanks for your business. Would you like to subscribe to dnd beyond + mega?” And I also guarantee that people will defend this business choice along with their choice not to sell PDFs of 5e products after they stop supporting it because it’s an old product. Again maybe it’s the fact I still play 3.5 but I find this whole “it’s old so who cares” mentality isn’t something I can agree with.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 12:27 PM

You’re treating the game like it’s a piece of software, it isn’t. And yes, they shouldn’t be able to go back and just rewrite previous books people paid money for because current design is going in a new direction. This isn’t Microsoft not supporting an old operating system, that would be asking them to keep releasing 3.5 or 4E content, this is George Lucas releasing Star Wars delux edition and covering everything with dated CGI. They printed those books. They sold those books. You should be able to use those books as printed in organized play or home games that allow them without having to worry about them getting errataed into oblivion. Reprinting is one thing, gives more options in home games and lets you pick between books in AL, but that’s not what we’re talking about and not what’s going on.

I'm treating the game like it's a game. Meaning it has to follow specific design principles in order to adequately realize the designers' intent. That's as true for pen-and-paper games as it is for digital ones.

The George Lucas analogy is frankly awful. Movies are not games, they are purely on-rails personal experiences. George Lucas doesn't have to worry about moviegoer X going from AMC to Cinemark and getting a completely different experience because of one chain interpreting his work differently than another, all they have to do is serve the popcorn, plug in the film reel and push play. I don't have to explain to you how D&D isn't like that at all. Moreover, Lucas made those changes for purely his own aesthetic preferences, with no explanation as to why. The 5e design team, by contrast, have explained their rationale every step of the way and why the old design was deficient/problematic.

This whole thing is the exact reason I hate dnd beyond. In four or five years when 6E or whatever comes out with a new PHB I can guarantee that they’ll be setting their support for a lot of existing books on fire with either their new dnd beyond shutting down or shifting to the new product, and the people who got those books their will get a email saying “existing 5E character sheets are getting deleted and the option to use that content in the character builder is being disabled in six months. Thanks for your business. Would you like to subscribe to dnd beyond + mega?” And I also guarantee that people will defend this business choice along with their choice not to sell PDFs of 5e products after they stop supporting it because it’s an old product. Again maybe it’s the fact I still play 3.5 but I find this whole “it’s old so who cares” mentality isn’t something I can agree with.

You mean the way they've stopped supporting every previous edition since editions were a thing? How on earth is DnD Beyond to blame for something the industry has been doing for decades before it existed? :smallconfused: How long after 3.5 came out did they stop printing 2e books and sheets?

If you really want to keep your old character sheets when a new edition rolls around and you don't trust the digital service to maintain them.... print them off or screenshot them. I'm not trying to come off as overly callous, but I just don't think "support every edition ever made forever" is anywhere near a reasonable expectation. At some point, if you want to stay in the past, it falls to you to keep circulating the tapes.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-11, 12:52 PM

Personally, I expect context to get obsoleted and removed from active service at a formal edition change. I DO NOT expect it to be removed (for anything other than extremely rare, mostly legal-syste./copyright reasons) during an edition's supported lifespan.

At a "backwards compatible" transition, I expect, well, backwards compatibly. Stop selling the old stuff, sure. But leave it up and functioning, maybe with a "convert to new format"optional button.

My issue with the present change is that they're acting like this is just another book release publicly (the edition change isn't for another few years) but then taking steps that should only happen at a formal edition change.

Greywander

2022-05-11, 01:17 PM

Releasing a new book with alternative/rewritten content: okay
Reprinting an old book with altered content: bad

How hard is this to understand? Also, fixing actual mistakes is not the same as rewriting content.

As for DND Beyond, the very fact that content from the old books will remain accessible to those who have already purchased them (as they should) means the underlying data will still exist in the system. This means they have the ability to continue to make these available and are choosing not to. Heck, you know what they could do that would make everyone happy? Give out free copies of the old books to anyone who buys the new book. If the old books aren't for sale anymore then it's not like this would lose them any sales.

I don't understand the people shilling for WotC. What we're asking for isn't unreasonable.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-11, 01:19 PM

I'm treating the game like it's a game. Meaning it has to follow specific design principles in order to adequately realize the designers' intent. That's as true for pen-and-paper games as it is for digital ones.

They are very clearly changing their design principles mid-game.

That doesn't happen in video games, post-launch they don't radically alter how the game works when it's been a commercial success. They make small balancing tweaks.

The kind of changes we're seeing are not what you'd expect from a stable, very financially healthy game. It's what you'd expect from an edition change, sequel etc.

The George Lucas analogy is frankly awful. Movies are not games, they are purely on-rails personal experiences. George Lucas doesn't have to worry about moviegoer X going from AMC to Cinemark and getting a completely different experience because of one chain interpreting his work differently than another, all they have to do is serve the popcorn, plug in the film reel and push play. I don't have to explain to you how D&D isn't like that at all. Moreover, Lucas made those changes for purely his own aesthetic preferences, with no explanation as to why. The 5e design team, by contrast, have explained their rationale every step of the way and why the old design was deficient/problematic.

Movies can arguably be changed to try and convey the maker's intent for the movie. Just because it isn't game doesn't mean that they don't have a vision and intent for the final product. Whilst George Lucas' changes are the most obvious, Director's Cuts are essentially the same thing.

You mean the way they've stopped supporting every previous edition since editions were a thing? How on earth is DnD Beyond to blame for something the industry has been doing for decades before it existed? :smallconfused: How long after 3.5 came out did they stop printing 2e books and sheets?

Strawman. This isn't the 80s and 90s, people have spent hundreds of dollars on digital product. It is not unreasonable to expect that product to be supported post edition change. Not indefinitely, but certainly not ending any time soon.

When an edition changed back then you got to keep your hard copies, because it was all there was. Online platforms like D&D Beyond are a large part of 5Es continuing success and growth, the situation is changing, you can't just point to history for this.

If you really want to keep your old character sheets when a new edition rolls around and you don't trust the digital service to maintain them.... print them off or screenshot them. I'm not trying to come off as overly callous, but I just don't think "support every edition ever made forever" is anywhere near a reasonable expectation. At some point, if you want to stay in the past, it falls to you to keep circulating the tapes.

Who said support every edition forever?

And you say that you don't want to come off as callous, but you replies to changes like this are by and large dismissing people's concerns because WotC make the game, so they make the choices, deal with it.

That's not how a community-driven game works, and it would only work like that if the community allows it.

And to address the evergreen promise thing: Yes they should honour it, they gained trust and sold books off of promises like that. It's not some stupid principle, it's following your word and not screwing over the people you're taking money from.

A game like D&D that expects to sell the same people so many products needs community trust.

And just in case you throw the success they're having out there: I imagine a lot of us 5E adopters will feel awfully bitter about a sizeable amount of money going down the drain unreasonably quickly.

Personally, I expect context to get obsoleted and removed from active service at a formal edition change. I DO NOT expect it to be removed (for anything other than extremely rare, mostly legal-syste./copyright reasons) during an edition's supported lifespan.

At a "backwards compatible" transition, I expect, well, backwards compatibly. Stop selling the old stuff, sure. But leave it up and functioning, maybe with a "convert to new format"optional button.

My issue with the present change is that they're acting like this is just another book release publicly (the edition change isn't for another few years) but then taking steps that should only happen at a formal edition change.

The bold is my issue as well. 5E is an active, growing, healthy edition. Yet they continue to use it as a testing ground and lying through their teeth about it.

Tasha's came out in 2020, yet clearly rules advertised as 'optional' are the default.

Strixhaven came out in 2021, yet clearly they intend to completely change the design intent of backgrounds.

The next changes need playtesting, that's fine. Testing it in the live edition, years before the change happens, is awful practice with a disregard for the game itself.

People don't short rest as much as expected? Oh no! Release an actual optional, DM facing rule giving guidance on how to tweak it to achieve what they intended.

I think I'd rather the game getting warped through bloat and added on systems than this mess of a midsystem/partial change they're gradually doing.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 01:58 PM

Releasing a new book with alternative/rewritten content: okay
Reprinting an old book with altered content: bad

How hard is this to understand?

Which old book are they reprinting?

They are very clearly changing their design principles mid-game.

And...? Is that not allowed? Was it chiseled into a stone tablet somewhere?

And it absolutely happens in video games. Try... literally any MMO or CCG for instance. Any game that gets steady updates for a decade or more does this, because that's just how evolving game design and changing design teams works. They're not required to keep selling the older content, and even letting it continue to function on their platform is a forebearance (though they have actually done so.)

Strawman. This isn't the 80s and 90s, people have spent hundreds of dollars on digital product. It is not unreasonable to expect that product to be supported post edition change. Not indefinitely, but certainly not ending any time soon.

When an edition changed back then you got to keep your hard copies, because it was all there was. Online platforms like D&D Beyond are a large part of 5Es continuing success and growth, the situation is changing, you can't just point to history for this.

No one is taking the digital copies you purchased away from you. They will still function on DDB per the FAQ linked earlier.

Who said support every edition forever?

And you say that you don't want to come off as callous, but you replies to changes like this are by and large dismissing people's concerns because WotC make the game, so they make the choices, deal with it.

That's not how a community-driven game works, and it would only work like that if the community allows it.

"The community" is not a monolith. What about those of us who like floating ASIs? Who like trying feats in backgrounds? who like streamlined statblocks? Are we not part of "the community?" Moreover, are the designers themselves not part of the community? Why do only the naysayers' opinions get to matter?

And to address the evergreen promise thing: Yes they should honour it, they gained trust and sold books off of promises like that. It's not some stupid principle, it's following your word and not screwing over the people you're taking money from.

A game like D&D that expects to sell the same people so many products needs community trust.

And just in case you throw the success they're having out there: I imagine a lot of us 5E adopters will feel awfully bitter about a sizeable amount of money going down the drain unreasonably quickly.
...
The bold is my issue as well. 5E is an active, growing, healthy edition. Yet they continue to use it as a testing ground and lying through their teeth about it.

I've yet to see the exact wording of this so-called "evergreen promise" they've reneged on (despite asking several times).

What I will say however is this - they have been very clear that they plan to test new changes in multiple ways, including existing products. We saw it with feats in backgrounds debuting in Strixhaven, we saw it with streamlined statblocks debuting in Witchlight/Fizban, and we saw it with floating ASIs debuting in Tasha's. If you don't think they should be testing upcoming changes in current releases, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion - but that ship has very clearly sailed.

Jervis

2022-05-11, 02:02 PM

I'm treating the game like it's a game. Meaning it has to follow specific design principles in order to adequately realize the designers' intent. That's as true for pen-and-paper games as it is for digital ones.

The George Lucas analogy is frankly awful. Movies are not games, they are purely on-rails personal experiences. George Lucas doesn't have to worry about moviegoer X going from AMC to Cinemark and getting a completely different experience because of one chain interpreting his work differently than another, all they have to do is serve the popcorn, plug in the film reel and push play. I don't have to explain to you how D&D isn't like that at all. Moreover, Lucas made those changes for purely his own aesthetic preferences, with no explanation as to why. The 5e design team, by contrast, have explained their rationale every step of the way and why the old design was deficient/problematic.

You mean the way they've stopped supporting every previous edition since editions were a thing? How on earth is DnD Beyond to blame for something the industry has been doing for decades before it existed? :smallconfused: How long after 3.5 came out did they stop printing 2e books and sheets?

If you really want to keep your old character sheets when a new edition rolls around and you don't trust the digital service to maintain them.... print them off or screenshot them. I'm not trying to come off as overly callous, but I just don't think "support every edition ever made forever" is anywhere near a reasonable expectation. At some point, if you want to stay in the past, it falls to you to keep circulating the tapes.

To answer your question about support, you can go right now and buy PDFs of everything WotC owns the rights to via DTRPG. At least for 4E and before. Though IIRC back in 2009 they tried to slash and burn that too and backed off because of backlash, I can’t remember the exacts though so take that with a grain of salt. WotC has made it clear they want DNDB to be the only way to get their products digitally moving forwards so that’s worrying for the future of the product. Given their history of cashgrabs I don’t see them making 5e products available to purchase through other means (at least digitally) any time soon after whatever new edition they make comes out because making those harder to buy is in their best interest as it encourages them to use the shiny new edition.

And yes, I don’t trust WotC. I hate how they make it so you can’t buy their products digitally are outside of services they can update and change whenever to take away access. You either get it hardcover, or you get it through Dndb or as a expansion on roll 20 or similar. All of their digital options are open to a rug pull where you just loose access to something you paid for it or gets errataed and updated without you asking. So your only option to get something not subject to their shadiness is to get it hardcover. Those have their own problems but it’s at least a option. Like you said though those go out of print and almost certainly will do so when they want to push a new edition. Leaving anyone who wants to play 5e to buy out of print books from a third party or get them from gentlemen with eyepatches on the internet.

As for the Lucas example. I don’t see how it’s different. TRPGs aren’t a video game with code. They’re a set of rules with included lore, story, art, etc. Changing your design principles isn’t an excuse for retroactively changing the rules people paid for already. It’s something 3.5 did occasionally as well but usually when updating things from 3.0 which had rules that are more different than most people that haven’t played both think, but more often than not that edition just made new content in line with the new design theory and left what was already made be. Best example being ToB which didn’t result in every class being moved up to proto-4E standards. Yes it’s a game but it’s a game that actually can support older content without any issues, especially since the newer content is built on a skeleton they haven’t changed (PHB, DMG, etc). I fail to see any justification for changing things people have been using for a while already instead of just making new content, it would help the problem people have cited of reselling content as well.

Yes yes yes, balance balance balance, but they printed peace cleric in Tasha’s so any argument they have for balance went out the window for these changes. Compared to that albatross around their neck Yuan’ti poison immunity barely maters. Print variant subraces and alternate subclasses in line with new design principles that can coexist with the old ones, balanced out by the fact that choosing older versions means you don’t have access to as many options under the AL typical PHB + 1 rule.

I love being lectured about how WotC, a mega rich corporation, needs to deny people the ability to buy the same books I use, and how its for my interest.

Heh. It’s something I notice with a lot of fanbases. Some people get really defensive when you criticize business practices of a company that makes popular thing so some people who like popular thing try to defend it even if that company is just doing some blatant anti-consumer activity.

Waazraath

2022-05-11, 02:13 PM

The next changes need playtesting, that's fine. Testing it in the live edition, years before the change happens, is awful practice with a disregard for the game itself.

I agree with what you say, it just reminds me an awful lot about how the new systems (in magic of incarnum, tome of battle, tome of magic) released in late 3.5 were sold as "cool new systems for the current edition" while they were in fact playtests for the 4e system. At least, that's what's argued here: http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=54877 (in a pretty hilariously written though not always correct review of magic of incarnum).

Greywander

2022-05-11, 02:48 PM

Heh. It’s something I notice with a lot of fanbases. Some people get really defensive when you criticize business practices of a company that makes popular thing so some people who like popular thing try to defend it even if that company is just doing some blatant anti-consumer activity.
What is a legitimate concern? A miserable pile of melodrama. But enough sales, have at thee!

Also, I can't seem to find strangebloke's post. Did it get removed, or is it because I'm on mobile right now?

Dork_Forge

2022-05-11, 03:11 PM

And...? Is that not allowed? Was it chiseled into a stone tablet somewhere?

Bad practice and creates a fractured gaming experience as you then have two completely different design principles running alongside each other. Also a complete lie when they implement things as optional... and then release everything in that way going forwards.

I don't understand why you keep acting like they needed some hard and fast rule to not do stuff like this, it's just bad practice and outright dishonest and it's okay for people to not like that. Before you reply that it's okay you like it... you're actively challenging the people voicing their displeasure.

And it absolutely happens in video games. Try... literally any MMO or CCG for instance. Any game that gets steady updates for a decade or more does this, because that's just how evolving game design and changing design teams works. They're not required to keep selling the older content, and even letting it continue to function on their platform is a forebearance (though they have actually done so.)

I heave no idea what a CCG is, and googling brings up an NHS construct and the term Collectible Card Game. I'll assume you mean the latter as you've thrown out terms without identifying them.

My only real vague experience of card games is Yu-Gi-Oh! in my youth and learning about the Pokemon TCG now. What the latter does at the very least, is make older cards not available for official play. Effectively 'changing editions.'

I've never played an MMO, so you're going to need to provide actual examples if you want that to mean anything. I have played plenty of video games in general though, and sweeping, game altering changes like these are only ever seen in beta stages in my experience. 7 Days to Die has rapidly changed, for example, as has The Long Dark, and that's perfectly okay because it's a beta. That's expected.

If I bought into Baldur's Gate 3 I wouldn't feel like this when changes were made, because it's still a beta.

5E is a live game that has made them incredible amounts of money, people are invested in their hobby, especially if they spent a lot of money on it and more so if they don't have a lot of disposable income to begin with.

No one is taking the digital copies you purchased away from you. They will still function on DDB per the FAQ linked earlier.

The FAQ is about the multiverse book, not about content remaining available post edition change.

"The community" is not a monolith. What about those of us who like floating ASIs? Who like trying feats in backgrounds? who like streamlined statblocks? Are we not part of "the community?" Moreover, are the designers themselves not part of the community? Why do only the naysayers' opinions get to matter?

You like those things? Great! Would you have actually been negatively affected if they had been more transparent about 'optional' rules? Would you have been negatively effected by waiting until 2024 for such big changes? I'm going to say no, because you like the changes. The game you were already playing, and presumably enjoying, got better. So what if you wait a couple years for those changes to be implemented in a more holistic way?

Seriously, what defence are you even trying to present here? You like the changes, you would have liked them in two years time. I don't actually mind all of the changes. I mind that they were shoe horned into an existing system with little care for the impact on it.

And IMO no, the devs aren't really the community of the game they create. They are part of what the community is about.

I've yet to see the exact wording of this so-called "evergreen promise" they've reneged on (despite asking several times).

Tried to find this, and what I actually found was that WotC purged their website of a lot of content from 5e's development and the 4e era. I couldn't even find the announcement for 5e, which is utterly bizarre to me from a video gaming history.

What I will say however is this - they have been very clear that they plan to test new changes in multiple ways, including existing products. We saw it with feats in backgrounds debuting in Strixhaven, we saw it with streamlined statblocks debuting in Witchlight/Fizban, and we saw it with floating ASIs debuting in Tasha's. If you don't think they should be testing upcoming changes in current releases, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion - but that ship has very clearly sailed.

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions and to voicing our disagreements on a forum about the game. However, when you are actively combating people voicing those displeasures with things like 'other people like it' 'it's their game and they can do what they want' 'nothing is forcing them to do x, so why should they?' your actions are not following your above words.

We know that things aren't likely to change now they're already in motion, that doesn't stop us wanting to air our gripes with people that might understand and agree with them.

[QUOTE=Waazraath;25455965]I agree with what you say, it just reminds me an awful lot about how the new systems (in magic of incarnum, tome of battle, tome of magic) released in late 3.5 were sold as "cool new systems for the current edition" while they were in fact playtests for the 4e system. At least, that's what's argued here: http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=54877 (in a pretty hilariously written though not always correct review of magic of incarnum).

I'll have to give this a read after work, I thoroughly missed the boat on 4E

KorvinStarmast

2022-05-11, 03:27 PM

You’re treating the game like it’s a piece of software, it isn’t. That happens a lot in the overcomputerized age.

Releasing a new book with alternative/rewritten content: okay
Reprinting an old book with altered content: bad Concur that this is bad. (Also, some of the errata changes were helpful, some harmful.

I don't understand the people shilling for WotC. What we're asking for isn't unreasonable. Feel similarly.

They are very clearly changing their design principles mid-game.
The kind of changes we're seeing are not what you'd expect from a stable, very financially healthy game. It's what you'd expect from an edition change, sequel etc. The approach they are using is 'creeping edition change'

Strawman. This isn't the 80s and 90s, people have spent hundreds of dollars on digital product. It is not unreasonable to expect that product to be supported post edition change. Not indefinitely, but certainly not ending any time soon. This.

And to address the evergreen promise thing: Yes they should honour it, they gained trust and sold books off of promises like that. It's not some stupid principle, it's following your word and not screwing over the people you're taking money from. Mind you, we are dealing with the company that produces Magic: the Gathering, a company which does just that time and again ...

And just in case you throw the success they're having out there: I imagine a lot of us 5E adopters will feel awfully bitter about a sizeable amount of money going down the drain unreasonably quickly.
Yes.

Bad practice and creates a fractured gaming experience as you then have two completely different design principles running alongside each other. Also a complete lie when they implement things as optional... and then release everything in that way going forwards. It's the blatant dishonesty that's galling.

5E is a live game that has made them incredible amounts of money, people are invested in their hobby, especially if they spent a lot of money on it and more so if they don't have a lot of disposable income to begin with. This is a good point, given the consumer base they are aiming at. (Not my demographic, I left the "18-45 year old consumer" sweet spot over a decade ago).

Tried to find this, and what I actually found was that WotC purged their website of a lot of content from 5e's development and the 4e era. I couldn't even find the announcement for 5e, which is utterly bizarre to me from a video gaming history.
If they burn the books/web pages, people have to go to the Way Back machine for their history ...

The D&D 4e digital resources bail out is what you and I can expect WoTC to do again with 5e.
It's a matter of when, not if.
(Yes, I am aware that there was a death in the family, as it were, but the company chose not to honor their customers' investments ...). I have a sneaking suspicion that everyone who buys the D&D digital content is, to them, a {MtG} whale to be harpooned once again.

P. G. Macer

2022-05-11, 03:38 PM

Roll20 will also be removing Volo’s Guide and Mordenkainen’s Tome from its Marketplace, per this social media post (https://www.facebook.com/roll20app/photos/a.491842170834754/5323138811038375) (Link is to Facebook and so may be blocked if you’re accessing the web from work).

Psyren

2022-05-11, 03:41 PM

To answer your question about support, you can go right now and buy PDFs of everything WotC owns the rights to via DTRPG. At least for 4E and before. Though IIRC back in 2009 they tried to slash and burn that too and backed off because of backlash, I can’t remember the exacts though so take that with a grain of salt. WotC has made it clear they want DNDB to be the only way to get their products digitally moving forwards so that’s worrying for the future of the product. Given their history of cashgrabs I don’t see them making 5e products available to purchase through other means (at least digitally) any time soon after whatever new edition they make comes out because making those harder to buy is in their best interest as it encourages them to use the shiny new edition.

But they are using DTRPG. They're the ones running DM's Guild, and no doubt pocketing a lucrative cut of the proceeds for doing so, given the size of 5e relative to... well, everything else.

Are you asking why they aren't also using DTRPG for 1st-party digital content? ...Why on earth would they need to? The middle-man adds no value there.

And yes, I don’t trust WotC. I hate how they make it so you can’t buy their products digitally are outside of services they can update and change whenever to take away access. You either get it hardcover, or you get it through Dndb or as a expansion on roll 20 or similar. All of their digital options are open to a rug pull where you just loose access to something you paid for it or gets errataed and updated without you asking. So your only option to get something not subject to their shadiness is to get it hardcover. Those have their own problems but it’s at least a option. Like you said though those go out of print and almost certainly will do so when they want to push a new edition. Leaving anyone who wants to play 5e to buy out of print books from a third party or get them from gentlemen with eyepatches on the internet.

Nothing in this paragraph is new to D&D 5e. So I guess I'm a little confused as to why it's such a big issue now, nearly a decade into the edition's run :smallconfused:

As for the Lucas example. I don’t see how it’s different. TRPGs aren’t a video game with code. They’re a set of rules with included lore, story, art, etc. Changing your design principles isn’t an excuse for retroactively changing the rules people paid for already. It’s something 3.5 did occasionally as well but usually when updating things from 3.0 which had rules that are more different than most people that haven’t played both think, but more often than not that edition just made new content in line with the new design theory and left what was already made be. Best example being ToB which didn’t result in every class being moved up to proto-4E standards. Yes it’s a game but it’s a game that actually can support older content without any issues, especially since the newer content is built on a skeleton they haven’t changed (PHB, DMG, etc). I fail to see any justification for changing things people have been using for a while already instead of just making new content, it would help the problem people have cited of reselling content as well.

Yet again... if you already paid for Volo's/MToF, you still have it.

What they are doing is choosing not to sell new copies of it to newcomers, because they believe (and have the right to believe) MotM's design is superior. They haven't deleted or broken the old stuff in your collection, it's still there. (Though I'd recommend, if you truly don't trust them, to go with the hardcopy approach. I obviously can't sanction the "eyepatch," that's up to you.)

Had they done this as errata instead, that would have overwritten the books you paid for - but they didn't.

Bad practice and creates a fractured gaming experience as you then have two completely different design principles running alongside each other.

Do you not see the irony here? You agree that supporting two design philosophies simultaneously is bad and fractured, but you want them to... go ahead and do that? Or is the ask that they should be forced to wait until the very end of an edition to even be allowed to try anything new in a published product at all?

Tried to find this, and what I actually found was that WotC purged their website of a lot of content from 5e's development and the 4e era. I couldn't even find the announcement for 5e, which is utterly bizarre to me from a video gaming history.

How very convenient. I'm shocked, really.

I don't understand why you keep acting like they needed some hard and fast rule to not do stuff like this, it's just bad practice and outright dishonest and it's okay for people to not like that. Before you reply that it's okay you like it... you're actively challenging the people voicing their displeasure.
...
Seriously, what defence are you even trying to present here? You like the changes, you would have liked them in two years time. I don't actually mind all of the changes. I mind that they were shoe horned into an existing system with little care for the impact on it.

So based on a promise you all can't even locate, the designers aren't allowed to evolve in any way from 2015 until 2024? That's reasonable to you? It's not remotely reasonable to me, and what's worse, I think if they had tried this awful "suggestion" the game as a whole would've immensely suffered for it. "No new design until 6e" just guarantees 6e will be crappy, on top of all the people who don't share your opinion that the current design doesn't need updating.

I've never played an MMO, so you're going to need to provide actual examples if you want that to mean anything.

World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy 14, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, Runescape... All have had major design shifts long after "beta." Had they not done so, they would be unlikely to have lasted as long as they did. Any living game with that kind of longevity needs to do the same, or else stagnate.

Tanarii

2022-05-11, 04:15 PM

I agree with what you say, it just reminds me an awful lot about how the new systems (in magic of incarnum, tome of battle, tome of magic) released in late 3.5 were sold as "cool new systems for the current edition" while they were in fact playtests for the 4e system. At least, that's what's argued here: http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=54877 (in a pretty hilariously written though not always correct review of magic of incarnum).
4e Essentials was Mike Mearl's test bed for ideas for 5e.

Which made the name they chose to go with both hilarious and sad at the same time.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-11, 04:16 PM

Do you not see the irony here? You agree that supporting two design philosophies simultaneously is bad and fractured, but you want them to... go ahead and do that? Or is the ask that they should be forced to wait until the very end of an edition to even be allowed to try anything new in a published product at all?

I want them to not use the current edition as a test bed for 2024 changes. That is very, very simple. You want to playtest a big change/new edition? Then release playtest material for that purpose. Paid material shouldn't be test material, it's the whole point of Unearthed Arcana.

There's a big difference between creating new content and mechanics for 5E, and then what they're doing which is using 5E as a testing bed for mechanics that actively alter how the game was originally designed.

You're equivalating any kind of new content/design, and not all change is equal in scope or intent.

How very convenient. I'm shocked, really.

Yes, it is convenient that the content surrounding the time where they were dealing with a difficult time and making a variety of promises that didn't actually happen (like the extent of modular play that Monte Cook spoke about)was expunged from their own website.

I imagine that is why they did it.

Your blue text reply feels like this:

"The robber broke into my store and stole the contents of my safe"

"Can you prove they did it"

"Well they destroyed the recording equipment as part of the robbery..."

"How convenient"

...Like, yes, it is, just not for the people that want to point to what they promised.

So based on a promise you all can't even locate, the designers aren't allowed to evolve in any way from 2015 until 2024? That's reasonable to you? It's not remotely reasonable to me, and what's worse, I think if they had tried this awful "suggestion" the game as a whole would've immensely suffered for it. "No new design until 6e" just guarantees 6e will be crappy, on top of all the people who don't share your opinion that the current design doesn't need updating.

Lol, no, based on not upending a successful game that I, and millions others, enjoy to test material for a change years away.

Something is coming out in mid-to late 2024? Here's something radical, put out playtest material and surveys about it in 2023, and focus on the game you're actually making and selling to people in the meantime.

This would be like me working on an entirely separate client, then copy/pasting chunks of it into an existing client request, even if it didn't really sit well with, or make sense with, the existing content I had written.

World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy 14, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, Runescape... All have had major design shifts long after "beta." Had they not done so, they would be unlikely to have lasted as long as they did. Any living game with that kind of longevity needs to do the same, or else stagnate.

By example I was hoping for something actually illustrative, and not just a list that doesn't actually explain what you're talking about. But from googling World of Warcraft a little bit, this is my impression:

Playing World of Warcraft is like playing Dungeons and Dragons. That doesn't actually mean anything to someone that knows about it until you specify what expansion pack/edition you play(ed).

If a game is going radical changes every so many years... that's all they're doing. You're not playing the same game anymore, just the current entry in the 'series.'

Psyren

2022-05-11, 04:42 PM

I want them to not use the current edition as a test bed for 2024 changes. That is very, very simple.

That ship sailed long before MotM. That is very, very simple.

es, it is convenient that the content surrounding the time where they were dealing with a difficult time and making a variety of promises that didn't actually happen (like the extent of modular play that Monte Cook spoke about)was expunged from their own website.

I imagine that is why they did it.

Your blue text reply feels like this:

"The robber broke into my store and stole the contents of my safe"

"Can you prove they did it"

"Well they destroyed the recording equipment as part of the robbery..."

"How convenient"

...Like, yes, it is, just not for the people that want to point to what they promised.

More like this:

"They signed a binding contract and broke it, I swear! I feel betrayed!"
"Okay, what did the contract specifically say?"
"I can't find it and don't remember exactly, but it definitely means I was entitled to all the things they're not doing anymore that I wanted, in perpetuity!"
"....Oooookay. Sure thing."

Lol, no, based on not upending a successful game that I, and millions others, enjoy to test material for a change years away.

Something is coming out in mid-to late 2024? Here's something radical, put out playtest material and surveys about it in 2023, and focus on the game you're actually making and selling to people in the meantime.

This would be like me working on an entirely separate client, then copy/pasting chunks of it into an existing client request, even if it didn't really sit well with, or make sense with, the existing content I had written.

What have they "upended?" If you want to stick with 2015 PHB and Volos-era design, you can. That doesn't mean the rest of the playerbase has to stagnate alongside you, nor the designers for that matter.

By example I was hoping for something actually illustrative, and not just a list that doesn't actually explain what you're talking about. But from googling World of Warcraft a little bit, this is my impression:

Playing World of Warcraft is like playing Dungeons and Dragons. That doesn't actually mean anything to someone that knows about it until you specify what expansion pack/edition you play(ed).

If a game is going radical changes every so many years... that's all they're doing. You're not playing the same game anymore, just the current entry in the 'series.'

You want me to list every major design shift they've done over the years to all of these games? Things like combat design, leveling progression and talent design, itemization, raid compositions and sizes, quest design, environment design, crafting and profession design etc? If you can't believe me that these games changed significantly over the course of a decade, then copy-pasting entire novels of patchnotes is not going to do the job either.

Elves

2022-05-11, 04:48 PM

You can houserule racial armor proficiency back in though, even in DDB.

I guess I'm at a loss for understanding any position which starts from "the designers shouldn't be allowed to update the default game." So long as they provide you the tools to undo their changes at your individual table - which, you know, they have - what exactly is the issue?

Acting as if the consensus doesn't matter in a social game often played with unfamiliar people is willful innocence

It's a lot of melodrama.
There seem to be 3 issues here

1) Moving from a product mentality to a subscription mentality -- you pay for access to things that can be changed without your will, rather than buying things you own
2) Controversial rules changes made by a new team with a different philosophy
3) Those controversial rules changes were said to be optional but are now being declared official, with previous content superseded, alienating people who dislike the changes and/or bought previous products

All of those are valid, and the 1st is an important issue in the consumer space in general these days

Pex

2022-05-11, 05:10 PM

They are very clearly changing their design principles mid-game.

Considering the people who work there now are mostly not the same people who started 5E this makes sense if not absolutely inevitable.

That doesn't happen in video games, post-launch they don't radically alter how the game works when it's been a commercial success. They make small balancing tweaks.

The kind of changes we're seeing are not what you'd expect from a stable, very financially healthy game. It's what you'd expect from an edition change, sequel etc.

The player community of Star Wars The Old Republic MMO would like a word with you. This is exactly what happened with their latest 7.0 update, and they are screaming bloody murder over it. They are absolutely incensed by the changes made and many subscribers have rage quit.

Brookshw

2022-05-11, 05:19 PM

I've yet to see the exact wording of this so-called "evergreen promise" they've reneged on (despite asking several times).

From a brief glance at the Term of Sales on D&D Beyond, looks like a buyer is getting a revocable without cause license to content that can be modified and made unavailable at any time and without notice. Caveat Emptor seems apt here.

PhantomSoul

2022-05-11, 05:21 PM

From a brief glance at the Term of Sales on D&D Beyond, looks like a buyer is getting a revocable without cause license to content that can be modified and made unavailable at any time and without notice. Caveat Emptor seems apt here.

Tried to find this, and what I actually found was that WotC purged their website of a lot of content from 5e's development and the 4e era. I couldn't even find the announcement for 5e, which is utterly bizarre to me from a video gaming history.

Sounds like the Way Back Machine / Internet Archive is the best bet if they dumped it from somewhere on their website

GooeyChewie

2022-05-11, 05:44 PM

Brookshw

2022-05-11, 05:56 PM

Yes, and with this move a lot of Emptors have started Caveating.

Better late than never :smallsigh:

GooeyChewie

2022-05-11, 06:06 PM

Better late than never :smallsigh:

Not for the seller!

Brookshw

2022-05-11, 06:08 PM

Not for the seller!

The seller can worry about themselves.

Tanarii

2022-05-11, 06:11 PM

Considering the people who work there now are mostly not the same people who started 5E this makes sense if not absolutely inevitable.
They were quite clearly hired to do exactly this, starting with Tasha's.

It also explains why Mearls was pushed out. He was the one that formulated the original evergreen policy and other design backbones of 5e, and they'd need to do that to hire a new team and have them begin a new direction.

It was pretty subtly started, since they originally tried to disguise Tasha's as just another Xanathars.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 06:38 PM

From a brief glance at the Term of Sales on D&D Beyond, looks like a buyer is getting a revocable without cause license to content that can be modified and made unavailable at any time and without notice. Caveat Emptor seems apt here.

The TOS is indeed the only "promise" that matters.

Acting as if the consensus canon doesn't matter in a social game often played with unfamiliar people is willful innocence

So because an individual playgroup who wants to remain static might have no hope of reasoning with their DM, the game as a whole shouldn't be allowed to evolve?

Yes, and with this move a lot of Emptors have started Caveating.

I'd better go reinforce my roof...

Dork_Forge

2022-05-11, 06:50 PM

That ship sailed long before MotM. That is very, very simple.

That doesn't mean that MotM isn't the most egregious example of it, nor does it mean that it invalidates how people feel because it already happened. We feel that way because it happened and because it will continue to happen.

More like this:

"They signed a binding contract and broke it, I swear! I feel betrayed!"
"Okay, what did the contract specifically say?"
"I can't find it and don't remember exactly, but it definitely means I was entitled to all the things they're not doing anymore that I wanted, in perpetuity!"
"....Oooookay. Sure thing."

Your version completely omits how WotC nuked their own website, but I point to the post above the one you replied to, providing a quote from Sage Advice saying they wouldn't make design changes with errata, and then showing how they did so.

What have they "upended?" If you want to stick with 2015 PHB and Volos-era design, you can. That doesn't mean the rest of the playerbase has to stagnate alongside you, nor the designers for that matter.

Elves put this well, but I will reiterate it here.

Just because individuals can do something doesn't mean it isn't a problem, especially in a social game often played with strangers.

And referring to using the existing design as stagnation is nothing but derogatory.

As for what they've upended... the design philosophy of 5E. The thing we've been discussing and you've been handwaving because you think whatever they want to do next is fine apparently.

You want me to list every major design shift they've done over the years to all of these games? Things like combat design, leveling progression and talent design, itemization, raid compositions and sizes, quest design, environment design, crafting and profession design etc? If you can't believe me that these games changed significantly over the course of a decade, then copy-pasting entire novels of patchnotes is not going to do the job either.

What? I wanted an illustrative example of what you meant because you basically did this:

CCG or MMO

List of games

This isn't convincing you?!

You weren't actually explaining anything, or giving and examples of what you were talking about. You just assumed what you were saying was common knowledge, which it clearly isn't if you haven't played those games.

Acting as if the consensus canon doesn't matter in a social game often played with unfamiliar people is willful innocence

There seem to be 3 issues here

1) Moving from a product mentality to a subscription mentality -- you pay for access to things that can be changed without your will, rather than buying things you own
2) Controversial rules changes made by a new team with a different philosophy
3) Those controversial rules changes were said to be optional but are now being declared official, with previous content superseded, alienating people who dislike the changes and/or bought previous products

All of those are valid, and the 1st is an important issue in the consumer space in general these days

Allll of this.

Considering the people who work there now are mostly not the same people who started 5E this makes sense if not absolutely inevitable.

Jeremy Craford has been integral the entire time and has just rose in importance and oversight. That said though, it shouldn't be to the whims of the individual designers anyway, there should be core philosophy and precedence to work on until they get a new edition to make their own.

The player community of Star Wars The Old Republic MMO would like a word with you. This is exactly what happened with their latest 7.0 update, and they are screaming bloody murder over it. They are absolutely incensed by the changes made and many subscribers have rage quit.

This kind of illustrates my point, it sounds like this wasn't the norm and when it happened it caused outrage?

They were quite clearly hired to do exactly this, starting with Tasha's.

It also explains why Mearls was pushed out. He was the one that formulated the original evergreen policy and other design backbones of 5e, and they'd need to do that to hire a new team and have them begin a new direction.

It was pretty subtly started, since they originally tried to disguise Tasha's as just another Xanathars.

This makes sense.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 07:19 PM

Your version completely omits how WotC nuked their own website, but I point to the post above the one you replied to, providing a quote from Sage Advice saying they wouldn't make design changes with errata, and then showing how they did so.

MotM and Tasha's aren't errata, they are new books entirely. That is precisely what they said they'd do.

And referring to using the existing design as stagnation is nothing but derogatory.

How else am I supposed to consider a desire to cleave to near-decade-old design principles? If considering things like fixed racial ASIs, cluttered statblocks and backgrounds that amount to a couple of proficiencies and a ribbon to be inferior design means I'm "derogatory" - well then, so be it, I do derogate those things.

As for what they've upended... the design philosophy of 5E. The thing we've been discussing and you've been handwaving because you think whatever they want to do next is fine apparently.

I've explained why I think the new design is superior, and more importantly so have they.

You weren't actually explaining anything, or giving and examples of what you were talking about.

If D&D is well and truly the only long-running game with a design team you have any experience with, that does explain a lot - but it also means that no, I don't have other examples to provide.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-11, 07:40 PM

MotM and Tasha's aren't errata, they are new books entirely. That is precisely what they said they'd do.

Here's the errata link for the SCAG: https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf

In it you will find design changes that Tashas put out, which were then forced upon the SCAG.

Both TCoE and MotM heavily collect on existing things, and when they do that, but then change the design, they are just changing the design via errata and selling a new book at the same time.

How else am I supposed to consider a desire to cleave to near-decade-old design principles? If considering things like fixed racial ASIs, cluttered statblocks and backgrounds that amount to a couple of proficiencies and a ribbon to be inferior design means I'm "derogatory" - well then, so be it, I do derogate those things.

Let's be clear here, what you think about which mechanic is inferior or superior is neither here nor there, nor is it what you said. You considered players that chose to not adopt these new changes as stagnating, that is referring to people not mechanics and that is derogatory.

I've explained why I think the new design is superior, and more importantly so have they.

This has nothing to do with whether or not how they're doing it, and when they're doing it, is appropriate and upholding what they've said previously. This just comes across as 'deal with it, they're doing it anyway and I like it so suck it up'

If D&D is well and truly the only long-running game with a design team you have any experience with, that does explain a lot - but it also means that no, I don't have other examples to provide.
You haven't really provided anything that illustrates your point. I don't really know how many times I have to say that.

You could have just said, for example in Warcraft at this time they made this significant change. But you didn't you just listed a bunch of games and spoke in vague abstract terms like that was meant to prove your point.

And the closest thing I can think of is how the Nazi Zombies game mode in CoD changed over the years, diverting extremely heavily at one point. It was frustrating and killed my desire to play them, but was at least more palatable because it happened over several different CoD parent games.

You still haven't addressed what would have been bad about waiting to do this, do you actually think it would have been worse leaving this for a bit to respect the 5E they built and made money off of?

strangebloke

2022-05-11, 09:00 PM

Let's be clear here, what you think about which mechanic is inferior or superior is neither here nor there, nor is it what you said. You considered players that chose to not adopt these new changes as stagnating, that is referring to people not mechanics and that is derogatory.

He's also repeatedly referred to everyone's concerns as "melodrama" as though we're not being honest about what we feel.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 09:01 PM

Here's the errata link for the SCAG: https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf

In it you will find design changes that Tashas put out, which were then forced upon the SCAG.

The design change still came from the new book, not errata. It only got added to errata after the book was made. "Promise" kept.

Let's be clear here, what you think about which mechanic is inferior or superior is neither here nor there, nor is it what you said. You considered players that chose to not adopt these new changes as stagnating, that is referring to people not mechanics and that is derogatory.

No, I have no problem with players who don't want to adopt these changes. Those players still have all their old books and can ignore every new book they want for all of me.

My problem lies with the belief that the designers aren't allowed to continue iterating on the game in any published form until 6e. That is, yes, stagnant.

This has nothing to do with whether or not how they're doing it, and when they're doing it, is appropriate and upholding what they've said previously. This just comes across as 'deal with it, they're doing it anyway and I like it so suck it up'

"What they've said previously" in that apocryphal vow you've yet to produce?

You haven't really provided anything that illustrates your point. I don't really know how many times I have to say that.

You could have just said, for example in Warcraft at this time they made this significant change. But you didn't you just listed a bunch of games and spoke in vague abstract terms like that was meant to prove your point.

So if I say something like "leveling progression and quest design" that's too vague, but if I get more specific about what they changed it would be a waste of time anyway because, by your own admission you've never played any MMO before (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644047-Rumor-After-MotMV-is-released-you-won-t-be-able-to-buy-Volos-or-MToF-separately&p=25456020&viewfull=1#post25456020) so you'd have no idea what I'm talking about anyway. So how exactly does that help?

strangebloke

2022-05-11, 09:23 PM

No, I have no problem with players who don't want to adopt these changes. Those players still have all their old books and can ignore every new book they want for all of me.

My problem lies with the belief that the designers aren't allowed to continue iterating on the game in any published form until 6e. That is, yes, stagnant.
I don't think we'll ever agree. They are iterating, yes, but why are they iterating? Leveraging social pressure to push everyone onto a new iteration is exactly how every multiplayer game makes money. You buy the new Call of Duty because if you don't you'll be left behind and won't have people to play with. This is basic market strategy 101, and its all over the industry. It was very specifically not supposed to be part of 5e.

Sure, they'll say all nice things about "player feedback" and "streamlined design " and all that, and some of that might be true, but removing things from their shop isn't primarily driven by this. There's no reason to remove things from the shop unless the goal is leveraging social pressure to push new books. Which is what they're doing. That's why they've launched this latest book digitally. You yourself call this 'money grubbing' and I agree. I just take it one logical step further.

"What they've said previously" in that apocryphal vow you've yet to produce?
There's no vow. But when promoting the game and its supplements, Mike made loads of statements likes this:

We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.
https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/624309458563272704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E624309458563272704%7Ctwgr%5E %7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2Fsword-coast-adventuring-guide-preview-hints%2F
That clearly speak to 5e being sold as a stable edition where books sold will be consistently reliable. And for the most part they have been! That's been a strength of the edition for the most part, I would say, but they've stuck to this strategy when they arguably shouldn't have - failing to update the base monk, ranger, or sorcerer for four years, as one example. But again, just because I think Tasha's ranger is better (though honestly it still sucks) doesn't mean that I think the original PHB should be unavailable if someone finds the favored terrain/foe business more interesting.

Suddenly going "surprise, your book we sold you a year ago is now now outdated and we won't sell it" is... yeah, its dumb.

Leon

2022-05-11, 09:26 PM

The new monster book also conflicts heavily with the Monster Manual (see the characterizations of goblins and hobgoblins for example). That's liable to cause confusion. Which version is "authoritative" (as much as such a thing exists)?

WotC products conflict all the time thru all the editions, this is nothing new or unexpected. You even have a Dev masquerading as an advice channel who conflicts regularly with stuff they have supposedly written. Generally one would expect the newer Book to be the one that is "authoritative" but your mileage may vary on that depending the shims of individual DMs/groups.

Brookshw

2022-05-11, 09:30 PM

He's also repeatedly referred to everyone's concerns as "melodrama" as though we're not being honest about what we feel.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

I think the implication is that the feelings are out of proportion to the events occurring, and he's not alone in that opinion. If you bought the physical books, great, you can keep using the rules you have; if you bought the digital books and are worried that you'll no longer have access to the rules you thought you were purchasing, then you weren't paying attention to the Term of Sales; if you think that you don't like the direction the game is heading, you don't need to buy anything further and can keep using what you already have (where I think I currently am). There's not much more going on here than that, and since you know where the game is heading, you should have sufficient information to make informed decisions - or at least enough information to sensibly delay further purchases and wait until future books are released - on if you want to invest further.

strangebloke

2022-05-11, 09:34 PM

I think the implication is that the feelings are out of proportion to the events occurring, and he's not alone in that opinion. If you bought the physical books, great, you can keep using the rules you have; if you bought the digital books and are worried that you'll no longer have access to the rules you thought you were purchasing, then you weren't paying attention to the Term of Sales; if you think that you don't like the direction the game is heading, you don't need to buy anything further and can keep using what you already have (where I think I currently am). There's not much more going on here than that, and since you know where the game is heading, you should have sufficient information to make informed decisions - or at least enough information to sensibly delay further purchases and wait until future books are released - on if you want to invest further.

I have physical books, I'm fine. And I'm not mad. But this doesn't mean that my feelings on this topic - which can basically be summed up as "yeah, WotC's going in a dumb/greedy direction and I've never been happier about ignoring DNDbeyond" - are 'melodrama' as though I'm crying and sobbing about something petty.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 10:06 PM

I don't think we'll ever agree. They are iterating, yes, but why are they iterating? Leveraging social pressure to push everyone onto a new iteration is exactly how every multiplayer game makes money. You buy the new Call of Duty because if you don't you'll be left behind and won't have people to play with. This is basic market strategy 101, and its all over the industry. It was very specifically not supposed to be part of 5e.

Sure, they'll say all nice things about "player feedback" and "streamlined design " and all that, and some of that might be true, but removing things from their shop isn't primarily driven by this. There's no reason to remove things from the shop unless the goal is leveraging social pressure to push new books. Which is what they're doing. That's why they've launched this latest book digitally. You yourself call this 'money grubbing' and I agree. I just take it one logical step further.

If they explicitly and repeatedly tell you why they're iterating, and you abjectly refuse to believe them, I genuinely can't see where you go from there. Other than the patently unrealistic "continue to design, playtest, and publish both philosophies!"

There's no vow.

Then why are a bunch of people pretending there was?

But when promoting the game and its supplements, Mike made loads of statements likes this:

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/624309458563272704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E624309458563272704%7Ctwgr%5E %7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2Fsword-coast-adventuring-guide-preview-hints%2F
That clearly speak to 5e being sold as a stable edition where books sold will be consistently reliable. And for the most part they have been! That's been a strength of the edition for the most part, I would say, but they've stuck to this strategy when they arguably shouldn't have - failing to update the base monk, ranger, or sorcerer for four years, as one example. But again, just because I think Tasha's ranger is better (though honestly it still sucks) doesn't mean that I think the original PHB should be unavailable if someone finds the favored terrain/foe business more interesting.

Suddenly going "surprise, your book we sold you a year ago is now now outdated and we won't sell it" is... yeah, its dumb.

Can you point to, whether in these articles or a different one, anywhere where he said "we promise never to iterate on or publish a new PHB?" Because I think you all just read way too much into "we think we can drop the edition numbers from this edition's title."

I think the implication is that the feelings are out of proportion to the events occurring, and he's not alone in that opinion. If you bought the physical books, great, you can keep using the rules you have; if you bought the digital books and are worried that you'll no longer have access to the rules you thought you were purchasing, then you weren't paying attention to the Term of Sales; if you think that you don't like the direction the game is heading, you don't need to buy anything further and can keep using what you already have (where I think I currently am). There's not much more going on here than that, and since you know where the game is heading, you should have sufficient information to make informed decisions - or at least enough information to sensibly delay further purchases and wait until future books are released - on if you want to invest further.

Yes, exactly.

Witty Username

2022-05-11, 10:24 PM

I feel like really the only solution to this is to not buy the new book, MotMV. Heck, if they do the new as errata like some suspect, you will have the new content anyway.

I have commented, admittedly partially joking, that Healing Spirit is banned in my games, specifically the errata version, but not the original. Because I thought the change was stupid, and is an eye catching way of describing my book allow policy. Which is books I own, allowed, books I don't own banned.

So I am sympathetic to the plight. I don't like errata, I just not convinced there is much to do about it.
The options are don't buy the book, or don't use D&D beyond. (Mathematical or, both is an option)

strangebloke

2022-05-11, 10:37 PM

If they explicitly and repeatedly tell you why they're iterating, and you abjectly refuse to believe them, I genuinely can't see where you go from there. Other than the patently unrealistic "continue to design, playtest, and publish both philosophies!"
I don't believe them because these corporate practices have far simpler justifications that have been shown hundreds of times over many industries. Occam's razor.

"Leaving something on their online store" doesn't seem to be "patently unrealistic" to me. Neither does making monsters with the same basic template they've been using for five years in addition to shaking things up sometimes.

Can you point to, whether in these articles or a different one, anywhere where he said "we promise never to iterate on or publish a new PHB?" Because I think you all just read way too much into "we think we can drop the edition numbers from this edition's title."
He is responding to a question about whether WotC will fall into a cycle of iterating quickly as a cash grab. He says no. He calls SCAG "evergreen" when promoting it. The intent from these statements is clear, and their current stance is clearly going back on that point. As I said, its not wholly a bad thing to have change - but attempting to force people to change so that you can sell more books remains a cash grab.

Greywander

2022-05-11, 10:51 PM

He's also repeatedly referred to everyone's concerns as "melodrama" as though we're not being honest about what we feel.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
Yeah, that's why I'm disengaging from this thread for now. It's not worth getting another warning, and it's clear that nothing productive will come from any further discussion. Hopefully things settle down later.

Though I did think my tweaked Castlevania quote above was pretty clever. So at least there's that.

Psyren

2022-05-11, 11:02 PM

I don't believe them because these corporate practices have far simpler justifications that have been shown hundreds of times over many industries. Occam's razor.

"We can make money doing this" and "this is better design" are not mutually exclusive. You could argue that was the very principle that led us to 5e in the first place. Or did you forget that "corporate practices" gave us this edition to begin with? Does that only matter when they make something you don't like?

"Leaving something on their online store" doesn't seem to be "patently unrealistic" to me. Neither does making monsters with the same basic template they've been using for five years in addition to shaking things up sometimes.

They gave you the reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw) they no longer want to push the old design and you refuse to believe them. That leaves us with nowhere to go. It's unrealistic because continuing to sell the old books would undermine their stated reasons for changing the design in the first place.

He is responding to a question about whether WotC will fall into a cycle of iterating quickly as a cash grab. He says no. He calls SCAG "evergreen" when promoting it. The intent from these statements is clear, and their current stance is clearly going back on that point. As I said, its not wholly a bad thing to have change - but attempting to force people to change so that you can sell more books remains a cash grab.

Without context, his 11-word tweet can be interpreted in multiple different ways. Evergreen as an introduction to FR? Notable places? History of the setting? Races and backgrounds? There's a lot of ways to take that beyond the "we promise that no subclass in this book will ever be updated" that you chose to land on.

Warder

2022-05-12, 12:11 AM

I'm not surprised at all - perhaps a little at D&D Beyond keeping both versions of things, I expected them to bulldoze those as well. Though I will say this; no matter if you think the WotC team is doing a good job with D&D or not, it should be pretty clear to all of us by now that they're not particularily trustworthy.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 10:30 AM

So I feel like I'm missing something.

If you already bought the product, you can keep it, and get to keep using it. No one is going to stop you, and it'll still be on D&D beyond.

If you haven't bought the product, you can buy the newer version that represents the current best practices of monster design.

This seems like a good decision to me. This way newer players aren't buying all 3 books and realizing that the older 2 are just the inferior version of this new book (Imagine the outrage at paying for 3 book and realizing that 2 of them are just redundant). I'm literally not seeing any downside. If you like the old product you get to play with it. If you have a DM that suddenly bans it, that just applies to that DM (and they could've done that anyway). The only potential people affected are new players who didn't buy the old book and now can't. And yet, those aren't the ones posting here about it.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 10:40 AM

He's also repeatedly referred to everyone's concerns as "melodrama" as though we're not being honest about what we feel.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

I think you're right there, there's nothing been said that has worked so I doubt that anything will.

So I feel like I'm missing something.

If you already bought the product, you can keep it, and get to keep using it. No one is going to stop you, and it'll still be on D&D beyond.

If you haven't bought the product, you can buy the newer version that represents the current best practices of monster design.

This seems like a good decision to me. This way newer players aren't buying all 3 books and realizing that the older 2 are just the inferior version of this new book (Imagine the outrage at paying for 3 book and realizing that 2 of them are just redundant). I'm literally not seeing any downside. If you like the old product you get to play with it. If you have a DM that suddenly bans it, that just applies to that DM (and they could've done that anyway). The only potential people affected are new players who didn't buy the old book and now can't. And yet, those aren't the ones posting here about it.

The new book isn't a complete replacement. It doesn't contain all of the mechanical options the older books did, and it leaves out a large amount of lore and monster information. This isn't just about getting access to the older way of doing things, it's outright removing content from the marketplace with no substitution.

There's also the issue of principle that they're doing this at all, with no reason for it.

Glorthindel

2022-05-12, 10:55 AM

Yeah, that's why I'm disengaging from this thread for now. It's not worth getting another warning, and it's clear that nothing productive will come from any further discussion. Hopefully things settle down later.

Though I did think my tweaked Castlevania quote above was pretty clever. So at least there's that.

He's also repeatedly referred to everyone's concerns as "melodrama" as though we're not being honest about what we feel.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.

I think you're right there, there's nothing been said that has worked so I doubt that anything will.

Don't allow yourselves to be browbeaten. Its a bullying tactic designed to make you shut up. Just because one voice is posting more times than others doesn't make it the majority voice. You have a right to be heard just as much as any other poster in this thread does.

Psyren

2022-05-12, 11:20 AM

The new book isn't a complete replacement. It doesn't contain all of the mechanical options the older books did, and it leaves out a large amount of lore and monster information. This isn't just about getting access to the older way of doing things, it's outright removing content from the marketplace with no substitution.

What makes you think they want to keep selling that lore? Why should they be forced to do so?

For example, the old Lizardfolk entry includes gems like "lacking in emotion and empathy...serves as an apt description" and "they don't mourn fallen comrades or rage against their enemies." Not only is that kind of prescriptive roleplaying a WotC-endorsed shackle on any prospective lizardfolk players, it applies to Lizardfolk on every single setting in their multiverse by default. If the devs later conclude "hmm, that description was actually kind of narrow-minded and might encourage Lizardfolk PCs to behave in an antisocial way" they should be allowed to change it - especially if they witnessed that kind of behavior firsthand at conventions or FLGS. And it's telling that MPMM Lizardfolk contain absolutely none of that kind of language anymore.

I think there's not enough consideration being given to the idea that they simply regret some of what they wrote in VGtM and MToF and wish to retract it. They can't (and shouldn't try) to take anyone's purchased books away from them, but they CAN clearly and definitively say that "this is not how we want to design races going forward" and make a clean break with that older material.

There's also the issue of principle that they're doing this at all, with no reason for it.

^ And this right here is why I'm still arguing. Because it's one thing to say "I don't like their reasons for doing this" - you have every right to be entitled to your preferences and tastes and no one, not even me, should silence that. But to say "they haven't given/don't have any reasons for doing this" is just a blatant lie, and it's one that a bunch of you keep repeating ad nauseam. Just be honest and say you don't like their reasons rather than saying they haven't given any. (On top of falsely claiming they broke some kind of blood oath that nobody has been able to reproduce.)

So I feel like I'm missing something.

If you already bought the product, you can keep it, and get to keep using it. No one is going to stop you, and it'll still be on D&D beyond.

If you haven't bought the product, you can buy the newer version that represents the current best practices of monster design.

This seems like a good decision to me. This way newer players aren't buying all 3 books and realizing that the older 2 are just the inferior version of this new book (Imagine the outrage at paying for 3 book and realizing that 2 of them are just redundant). I'm literally not seeing any downside. If you like the old product you get to play with it. If you have a DM that suddenly bans it, that just applies to that DM (and they could've done that anyway). The only potential people affected are new players who didn't buy the old book and now can't. And yet, those aren't the ones posting here about it.

Indeed.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 11:21 AM

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-12, 11:46 AM

There's no vow. But when promoting the game and its supplements, Mike made loads of statements likes this:

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/17/what-is-the-next-dungeons-amp-dragons.aspx?PostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/624309458563272704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E624309458563272704%7Ctwgr%5E %7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2Fsword-coast-adventuring-guide-preview-hints%2F
That clearly speak to 5e being sold as a stable edition where books sold will be consistently reliable. And for the most part they have been! That's been a strength of the edition for the most part, I would say, but they've stuck to this strategy when they arguably shouldn't have - failing to update the base monk, ranger, or sorcerer for four years, as one example. But again, just because I think Tasha's ranger is better (though honestly it still sucks) doesn't mean that I think the original PHB should be unavailable if someone finds the favored terrain/foe business more interesting.

Suddenly going "surprise, your book we sold you a year ago is now now outdated and we won't sell it" is... yeah, its dumb.

Funny enough, I'd read that the opposite. He wants to essentially not have "editions" anymore and just continually write the material. And now we have a book that updates and changes a bunch of things much in the way 3.5 did to 3.0 and instead of a new number making it a separate or different thing it's just a continuation.

It's literally not any different than 3.0-3.5 but they left a number off. And I can't help but imagine that if instead of MMoM and a slow roll down of VGtM and MToF they had instead launched a 5.5 PHB, DMG and MM people would instead be complaining there because WotC was "forcing" them to update with three new books.

How about when they moved from 2e to 3.0? Man that was horrible how they abandoned all those old books and people couldn't get them anymore....

It's all the same process they've always done with some changing semantics.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 11:53 AM

Don't allow yourselves to be browbeaten. Its a bullying tactic designed to make you shut up. Just because one voice is posting more times than others doesn't make it the majority voice. You have a right to be heard just as much as any other poster in this thread does.

This is a good point, thank you for the support.

What makes you think they want to keep selling that lore? Why should they be forced to do so?

Let's be blunt, who cares what they want in isolation? You lose that right when you start marketing your product to a large audience that determines your future.

Why should the be forced to do so? Forced to do what, keep raking in money from books that paid for themselves years ago? If you want an actual reason, because what they're doing is not only shady, but also fragmenting the game and player base.

For example, the old Lizardfolk entry includes gems like "lacking in emotion and empathy...serves as an apt description" and "they don't mourn fallen comrades or rage against their enemies." Not only is that kind of prescriptive roleplaying a WotC-endorsed shackle on any prospective lizardfolk players, it applies to Lizardfolk on every single setting in their multiverse by default. If the devs later conclude "hmm, that description was actually kind of narrow-minded and might encourage Lizardfolk PCs to behave in an antisocial way" they should be allowed to change it - especially if they witnessed that kind of behavior firsthand at conventions or FLGS. And it's telling that MPMM Lizardfolk contain absolutely none of that kind of language anymore.

They're presenting something that isn't just humans in funny hats? *gasp!* How dare they!

Here's also part of the intro to Lizardfolk that you didn't cherry pick:

"Despite their alien outlook, some lizardfolk make an effort to understand and, in their own manner, befriend people of other ratces. Such lizardfolk make faithful and skilled allies."

Or how about from that same cherry picked section of yours?

"A lizardfolk who lives among other humanoids can, over time, learn to respect other creatures' emotions."

Or how about the text of the Hapless Soft Ones entry, where they can fiercely protect other humanoids as they view them like hatchlings that need to be protected?

Taking the fluff of lizardfolk and using it to play in an antisocial or problematic way is a player problem. The entire times since Volo's has graced shelves people have played them with no issue.

I'm also severely doubting the design team have seen little to anything first hand in conventions and gaming stores.

I think there's not enough consideration being given to the idea that they simply regret some of what they wrote in VGtM and MToF and wish to retract it. They can't (and shouldn't try) to take anyone's purchased books away from them, but they CAN clearly and definitively say that "this is not how we want to design races going forward" and make a clean break with that older material.

Here's something: Volo's is a Forgotten Realms book, a real life version of a fictional work by a character from that world. It is full of forgotten realms lore. All they have to do is reference how they were described and say 'that's how many are in the FR, but in otherworlds they can, and are, different' just like they've done with umpteen other things.

And what, about any of this, is a clean break to you? Seriously?

A clean break is waiting until edition change.

A clean break doesn't lead to confusion when a group of mixed years of experience suddenly get confused why one owns a book the other didn't get included with their 'buy all material' bundle on D&D Beyond.

Nothing about this is clean, and regardless what they think of what's already published, it exists. They can't make that go away and that's all this seems like, a shady way to push it away.

And don't say about problematic material, they wholesale ripped entire paragraphs out of Volos to remove 'problematic material' with errata.

.

^ And this right here is why I'm still arguing. Because it's one thing to say "I don't like their reasons for doing this" - you have every right to be entitled to your preferences and tastes and no one, not even me, should silence that. But to say "they haven't given/don't have any reasons for doing this" is just a blatant lie, and it's one that a bunch of you keep repeating ad nauseam. Just be honest and say you don't like their reasons rather than saying they haven't given any. (On top of falsely claiming they broke some kind of blood oath that nobody has been able to reproduce.)

They have broken a lot of what they promised for 5e, how about you go and google it if you have such a hard time believing that a company did such a terrible thing? One poster already gave a quote about how they would not use errata, and then showed how they broke that. Publishing a new book at the same time doesn't excuse that behaviour.

And stop accusing the people that don't agree with you as being dishonest or lying. I've been perfectly clear about what I don't like about WotC new direction in many, many threads, including this one. But if you're so adamant and are such a fan of proof:

Point to a quote from WotC that transparently explained why they removing certain books, that explains what happens to the material that 'falls through the cracks' by not getting a new version or republished.

They out right lied to the consumer base when Tasha's was released. That is a fact. They have eroded trust that they had built and continuing shady practices like this only increases that, and can only be looked at in a skeptical light with that background.

You want to believe it's nothing but honesty and altruism? Good for you. Lots of us don't, and you defending WotC just comes off as they can do no wrong and us that don't like it better move on or keep opening our wallets.

If you say that we are entitled to our opinion, and voicing our opinion, then act in a way that actually supports it instead of challenging it on flimsy standings like 'they didn't use errata to change SCAG, they published a new book!' That's like a toddler saying they didn't do anything wrong, because the rule is no hitting and they bit their classmate.

The mechanical option I'm guessing is deliberate because they feel they have a better design. So for new players they're just offering the current best mechanics (as far as they're concerned anyway). And again, if you already own and enjoy the older material you can still use it.

As to the lore, is there anything important being removed? Or is it part of the new design, making it so that entire races aren't inherently evil?

They're removing lore for how things work in specific settings and removing helpful roleplay aids for DMs. Because sorry, Beholders being cuddly and friendly is not the default in 5E.

Omitting the Tiefling variants isn't replaced by anything. It's just removing it. The Tiefling is PHB so doesn't have a new overall version.

Oh and unless they errata SCAG, which I haven't seen word of yet, they're creating multiple versions of the same race options, that's just confusing fragmentation.

When designers can see there was a better way to design something, you know what they normally, and should, do? Do that next time.

Do it in 2024, or whenever 6E will actually be. Don't do it in some random damn book with a disjointed release schedule and revoke older books.

Psyren

2022-05-12, 12:29 PM

Let's be blunt, who cares what they want in isolation? You lose that right when you start marketing your product to a large audience that determines your future.

Why should the be forced to do so? Forced to do what, keep raking in money from books that paid for themselves years ago? If you want an actual reason, because what they're doing is not only shady, but also fragmenting the game and player base.

Wait, now I'm confused. You claim they're giving up on "raking in money" by taking this stance, so are you now saying it's not a cash-grab? Surely the cash-grabby thing to do would be to keep selling Volo's alongside MPMM despite only wanting to perpetuate the lore and design from the latter, no? So which is it?

They're presenting something that isn't just humans in funny hats? *gasp!* How dare they!

Here's also part of the intro to Lizardfolk that you didn't cherry pick:

"Despite their alien outlook, some lizardfolk make an effort to understand and, in their own manner, befriend people of other ratces. Such lizardfolk make faithful and skilled allies."

Or how about from that same cherry picked section of yours?

"A lizardfolk who lives among other humanoids can, over time, learn to respect other creatures' emotions."

Or how about the text of the Hapless Soft Ones entry, where they can fiercely protect other humanoids as they view them like hatchlings that need to be protected?

Taking the fluff of lizardfolk and using it to play in an antisocial or problematic way is a player problem. The entire times since Volo's has graced shelves people have played them with no issue.

I'm also severely doubting the design team have seen little to anything first hand in conventions and gaming stores.

"Some lizardfolk aren't borderline sociopaths" is not much of a consolation for painting with such a broad brush to begin with. Hence them deciding to scrap that lore, and they have valid reasons for doing so.

Here's something: Volo's is a Forgotten Realms book, a real life version of a fictional work by a character from that world. It is full of forgotten realms lore. All they have to do is reference how they were described and say 'that's how many are in the FR, but in otherworlds they can, and are, different' just like they've done with umpteen other things.

And what, about any of this, is a clean break to you? Seriously?

A clean break is waiting until edition change.

A clean break doesn't lead to confusion when a group of mixed years of experience suddenly get confused why one owns a book the other didn't get included with their 'buy all material' bundle on D&D Beyond.

Nothing about this is clean, and regardless what they think of what's already published, it exists. They can't make that go away and that's all this seems like, a shady way to push it away.

And don't say about problematic material, they wholesale ripped entire paragraphs out of Volos to remove 'problematic material' with errata.

Would you have rather they nuked all this with errata instead of via a new book? It seems to me that would cause even worse backlash, because now not only would newcomers be unable to get their hands on the old Volo's, the existing (digital) owners would have had their products altered as well. As opposed to what they went with, which is to leave your copy of Volo's intact and usable on their platform.

Again, your stance appears to boil down to "they shouldn't be allowed to change anything except for minor tweaks until the entire edition is over" - and I'm sorry, but that's just not a realistic take on game design in 2022.

They have broken a lot of what they promised for 5e, how about you go and google it if you have such a hard time believing that a company did such a terrible thing? One poster already gave a quote about how they would not use errata, and then showed how they broke that. Publishing a new book at the same time doesn't excuse that behaviour.

And stop accusing the people that don't agree with you as being dishonest or lying. I've been perfectly clear about what I don't like about WotC new direction in many, many threads, including this one. But if you're so adamant and are such a fan of proof:

Point to a quote from WotC that transparently explained why they removing certain books, that explains what happens to the material that 'falls through the cracks' by not getting a new version or republished.

They out right lied to the consumer base when Tasha's was released. That is a fact. They have eroded trust that they had built and continuing shady practices like this only increases that, and can only be looked at in a skeptical light with that background.

You want to believe it's nothing but honesty and altruism? Good for you. Lots of us don't, and you defending WotC just comes off as they can do no wrong and us that don't like it better move on or keep opening our wallets.

If you say that we are entitled to our opinion, and voicing our opinion, then act in a way that actually supports it instead of challenging it on flimsy standings like 'they didn't use errata to change SCAG, they published a new book!' That's like a toddler saying they didn't do anything wrong, because the rule is no hitting and they bit their classmate.

You want me to go and google support for your position? That's... not how debate works :smallconfused:

As for "why they're no longer selling the old books" - I mean, I can link you to the JC interview yet again but that feels spammy.

Brookshw

2022-05-12, 12:50 PM

I have physical books, I'm fine. And I'm not mad. But this doesn't mean that my feelings on this topic - which can basically be summed up as "yeah, WotC's going in a dumb/greedy direction and I've never been happier about ignoring DNDbeyond" - are 'melodrama' as though I'm crying and sobbing about something petty.

I'm with you on being happy for ignoring DND Beyond. Feel however you think you should, and recognize that others may/will think you're overreacting, and that their opinions are just as valid as your own, its a two way street. At the end of the day, whatever people feel or think of WoTC's decisions, it doesn't change the options that are available.

Don't allow yourselves to be browbeaten. Its a bullying tactic designed to make you shut up. Just because one voice is posting more times than others doesn't make it the majority voice. You have a right to be heard just as much as any other poster in this thread does.

Pretty sure no one's trying to silence someone's opinion so much as reacting to those opinions. Also, strikes me as a bit odd in a 5 on 1 debate where each person is equal to each other - with Psyren being the 1 - to treat the 5 as underdogs that are being "browbeaten" or bullied, apparently because the 1 needs to post more to keep up with the cumulative posts they're replying to :smallconfused:

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 01:07 PM

Wait, now I'm confused. You claim they're giving up on "raking in money" by taking this stance, so are you now saying it's not a cash-grab? Surely the cash-grabby thing to do would be to keep selling Volo's alongside MPMM despite only wanting to perpetuate the lore and design from the latter, no? So which is it?

I believe you're confusing me with another poster, perhaps StrangeBloke. My memory might be faulty, but I don't remember ever using the term 'money grubbing' in my life, and I don't recall making the claim that what they're doing right now is to force book sales.

I do remember that argument being made by other posters, and would rather you not conflate us.

"Some lizardfolk aren't borderline sociopaths" is not much of a consolation for painting with such a broad brush to begin with. Hence them deciding to scrap that lore, and they have valid reasons for doing so.

They gave up on making races anything but humans in funny hats. It's okay that people don't like that, and I've never heard any pushback on the liazrd folk.... ever. Not online or irl. This just feels like looking for potentially problematic things to justify it.

Would you have rather they nuked all this with errata instead of via a new book? It seems to me that would cause even worse backlash, because now not only would newcomers be unable to get their hands on the old Volo's, the existing (digital) owners would have had their products altered as well. As opposed to what they went with, which is to leave your copy of Volo's intact and usable on their platform.

...How have I not been clear about what I want? I wanted them to wait until an edition change for such massive changes to fundamental design shift.

And stop framing this as them doing something nice, and let me point out a flaw with your assumption:

I don't own either book on Beyond. The majority of my collection is physical, not on Beyond. However, I do pick up books on Beyond as funds and sales allow, because it's a useful resource for an online player and DM to have access to. That won't be available going forwards for those books.

Again, your stance appears to boil down to "they shouldn't be allowed to change anything except for minor tweaks until the entire edition is over" - and I'm sorry, but that's just not a realistic take on game design in 2022.

Lol, that is not my stance at all.

They've shown subtle changes and introduced new things throughout 5E. They can even take new design cues without being overly disruptive. I don't like the prof bonus thing for subclass abilities, but it fit into the game well enough without upending existing design paradigms.

Stop framing any pushback on what they're doing as they can't change anything. I don't think anyone has taken that stance, and I have repeatedly said no when you've tried to assign it to me personally. Not all changes are equal.

You want me to go and google support for your position? That's... not how debate works :smallconfused:

They nuked a significant amount of content around when they made said statements. I spent 30 minutes yesterday googling it and found people talking about, and providing quotes from Monte Cook about various things about 5E that never came to pass.

Another user provided a Sage Advice with a statement they very clearly violated.

If you are unfamiliar with what they said, and you do not believe the various people saying it, then yes, looking for it yourself would be a prudent thing to do. Like when you referred to the video down below, and I had to scan a 5 page thread to find it.

As for "why they're no longer selling the old books" - I mean, I can link you to the JC interview yet again but that feels spammy.

Ah yes the video you posted in reply to a different person, and posted as a hyperlink as part of your reply. What an obvious and easy-to-find piece of evidence you have provided.

How about you actually write what they said that supports you, instead of linking to a 12 and a half minute long video on a text-based forum?

Although spoiler: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT NOT SELLING THE OLDER BOOKS.

They talk about changing the races. About the design process for the book in question. I had the entire thing on the side whilst working and didn't hear anything about them yanking older books off sale. And you know what? if it was on there this wouldn't have been an unsubstantiated rumour for so long, as that video was posted in JANUARY.

If you think they said something that explains it, write it out yourself and provide a timestamp, stop hiding behind high noise videos you expect people to sit through and parse through to try and riddle out what you're even referring to.

Bonus point! JC said that they were given new features so that they would 'stand shoulder to shoulder' and yet they clearly failed in that aspect. Example: They made the minotaur worse overall for features, when it wasn't stellar to begin with.

Warder

2022-05-12, 01:12 PM

I'm with you on being happy for ignoring DND Beyond. Feel however you think you should, and recognize that others may/will think you're overreacting, and that their opinions are just as valid as your own, its a two way street. At the end of the day, whatever people feel or think of WoTC's decisions, it doesn't change the options that are available.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but I will say that stating "you're overreacting" - or even worse, the not-so-subtle "some people here are overreacting" adds very very little to a discussion, and only serves to hurt and anger. This is a game people are passionate about! It's fine to disagree with an opinion, it's fine to not care about something someone else cares about, but to tell someone that their concern is invalid because you don't personally agree with it is extremely tonedeaf in a forum dedicated to a hobby people care strongly about, especially if that's all you say. The general you here, not you specifically.

I think discussions about D&D and the many changes it has gone through recently would be far more fruitful if all parties accepted that people care about different things in the game.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 01:16 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but I will say that stating "you're overreacting" - or even worse, the not-so-subtle "some people here are overreacting" adds very very little to a discussion, and only serves to hurt and anger. This is a game people are passionate about! It's fine to disagree with an opinion, it's fine to not care about something someone else cares about, but to tell someone that their concern is invalid because you don't personally agree with it is extremely tonedeaf in a forum dedicated to a hobby people care strongly about, especially if that's all you say. The general you here, not you specifically.

I think discussions about D&D and the many changes it has gone through recently would be far more fruitful if all parties accepted that people care about different things in the game.

An excellent post.

A lot of us just want to be heard, writing off what we think as 'melodrama' or outright saying that choosing to not use the new stuff is 'stagnating' is, well as you put it, neither constructive or sensitive, and lends to the overall tone that was referred to in Glorthindel's post.

Psyren

2022-05-12, 01:19 PM

Brookshw

2022-05-12, 01:48 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but I will say that stating "you're overreacting" - or even worse, the not-so-subtle "some people here are overreacting" adds very very little to a discussion, and only serves to hurt and anger. This is a game people are passionate about! It's fine to disagree with an opinion, it's fine to not care about something someone else cares about, but to tell someone that their concern is invalid because you don't personally agree with it is extremely tonedeaf in a forum dedicated to a hobby people care strongly about, especially if that's all you say. The general you here, not you specifically.

I think discussions about D&D and the many changes it has gone through recently would be far more fruitful if all parties accepted that people care about different things in the game.

Of course, and no argument. Some of the issue is that over multiple threads, and multiple posts, at a certain point things become shorthand, so something that may have started out as "I don't believe the change you're strongly objecting to is significant, and I have no objection to it" gets shortened to "melodrama", unfortunate word choice perhaps. Otoh, No one should think that their feelings are going to be automatically validated/agreed with, doing so would also shut down meaningful discussion, there has to be room for dissent in all areas. It's a needle we all try and thread with mixed results.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 01:57 PM

strangebloke

2022-05-12, 01:58 PM

Of course, and no argument. Some of the issue is that over multiple threads, and multiple posts, at a certain point things become shorthand, so something that may have started out as "I don't believe the change you're strongly objecting to is significant, and I have no objection to it" gets shortened to "melodrama", unfortunate word choice perhaps. Otoh, No one should think that their feelings are going to be automatically validated/agreed with, doing so would also shut down meaningful discussion, there has to be room for dissent in all areas. It's a needle we all try and thread with mixed results.

I don't think it was an unfortunate word choice. Certainly, if it was, there's been ample time to clarify. As you mention this discussion has been playing out over many multi-page threads, where he's also described everyone disagreeing with him as stagnated and outdated. There's no needle that's being threaded here, except possibly the "I'm not going to break the rules and say what I really think" needle, which is going on on both sides pretty clearly from what I can see.

Honestly the discussion here is going nowhere good and I think the sides have completely calcified in their positions. Hence why my original comment was from the position of "This discussion is completely pointless." Which ironically, was something that Psyren agreed with. So if we could all just be quiet and kill the thread I think it would be best.

Psyren

2022-05-12, 02:25 PM

I don't think it was an unfortunate word choice. Certainly, if it was, there's been ample time to clarify. As you mention this discussion has been playing out over many multi-page threads, where he's also described everyone disagreeing with him as stagnated and outdated. There's no needle that's being threaded here, except possibly the "I'm not going to break the rules and say what I really think" needle, which is going on on both sides pretty clearly from what I can see.

Honestly the discussion here is going nowhere good and I think the sides have completely calcified in their positions. Hence why my original comment was from the position of "This discussion is completely pointless." Which ironically, was something that Psyren agreed with. So if we could all just be quiet and kill the thread I think it would be best.

I did use that "ample time to clarify" that I meant beliefs rather than posters. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644047-Rumor-After-MotMV-is-released-you-won-t-be-able-to-buy-Volos-or-MToF-separately&p=25456315&viewfull=1#post25456315) But declaring I haven't done the thing I've done is just one more dart being flung my way, so hey.

Anymage

2022-05-12, 02:33 PM

The mechanical option I'm guessing is deliberate because they feel they have a better design. So for new players they're just offering the current best mechanics (as far as they're concerned anyway). And again, if you already own and enjoy the older material you can still use it.

As to the lore, is there anything important being removed? Or is it part of the new design, making it so that entire races aren't inherently evil?

Sometimes I think there's value to reading through older books for inspiration or just for the experience. DrivethruRPG lets me do that for systems/gamelines that I don't expect to ever actually play, and I like it for that. Someone can enjoy and want to use the earlier 5e books for ideas without wanting to have to hunt down a physical copy or pirate it. If WotC put in a disclaimer that the material was outdated and then put the books up on DTRPG or just made it available for people who knew the link while removing the books from the shop list, I'd be happy.

Speaking for WotC's ability to change the mechanics and lore of the game to be more to their liking? That's been talked over bunches and has taken over many even tangentially related threads. Some people like it, some don't. Whether or not it will succeed in the market remains TBD. But the worst I can say is that I don't like it and I don't expect it to do well. Wouldn't be the first time a company tried changing things and it didn't work out as they'd hoped.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 02:59 PM

Sometimes I think there's value to reading through older books for inspiration or just for the experience. DrivethruRPG lets me do that for systems/gamelines that I don't expect to ever actually play, and I like it for that. Someone can enjoy and want to use the earlier 5e books for ideas without wanting to have to hunt down a physical copy or pirate it. If WotC put in a disclaimer that the material was outdated and then put the books up on DTRPG or just made it available for people who knew the link while removing the books from the shop list, I'd be happy.

Speaking for WotC's ability to change the mechanics and lore of the game to be more to their liking? That's been talked over bunches and has taken over many even tangentially related threads. Some people like it, some don't. Whether or not it will succeed in the market remains TBD. But the worst I can say is that I don't like it and I don't expect it to do well. Wouldn't be the first time a company tried changing things and it didn't work out as they'd hoped.

I agree that it's definitely debatable how people are going to react to a change. Personally, I have a strong feeling that this is a lot of anger in search of a problem rather then a real issue that is genuinely going to affect people. Because, if you already own the book, absolutely nothing changes. And if you don't own the book, its not like you're going to realize your missing out at looking at an older poorer version of the characters. Sure, maybe a little of the lore goes away, but again, you're not likely to notice if you didn't own the book already, and if you own it, you still have it.

At best, people are angry on behalf of players who don't own the book now, but might want it on D&D beyond in the future (and this is assuming they realize that they are missing a book, which is probably not that likely).

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 03:10 PM

At best, people are angry on behalf of players who don't own the book now, but might want it on D&D beyond in the future (and this is assuming they realize that they are missing a book, which is probably not that likely).

Or, like myself, you have a physical library that you're gradually digitizing, or no, you don't still have it because it fell apart from use, got lost, stolen, ruined by a knocked over drink at the table etc.

As far as people realising they're missing a book, I don't understand why you think that's unlikely? People will still reference it online, lists of books still exist online, and as new players get into the hobby they'll explore backlogged content they've just discovered and see reviews/discussion around it.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 03:24 PM

Or, like myself, you have a physical library that you're gradually digitizing, or no, you don't still have it because it fell apart from use, got lost, stolen, ruined by a knocked over drink at the table etc.

As far as people realising they're missing a book, I don't understand why you think that's unlikely? People will still reference it online, lists of books still exist online, and as new players get into the hobby they'll explore backlogged content they've just discovered and see reviews/discussion around it.

and the answer they can see is that there is a newer book that represents the best current iteration of the material. There's over 50 D&D books at this point, and this is updating 2 of them. Again, this is a mountain and mole-hill situation. It's not like they haven't already given you a heads up. If you absolutely need to have it sooner rather then later, buy it before May 16th.

Waazraath

2022-05-12, 03:26 PM

They gave you the reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Org6KlD7Cfw) they no longer want to push the old design and you refuse to believe them. That leaves us with nowhere to go. It's unrealistic because continuing to sell the old books would undermine their stated reasons for changing the design in the first place.

I'm not having a really strong opinion on the whole discussion - I understand why they make some of the changes - on the other hand I think it would be more manner to keep old books available, and wait for big changes to a 5.5 or 6e release, and it's bad manner to say A and do B (also for a company, and when a claim is made at another place than Term of Sales - to refer an untruth is no problem if it's not in the latter being a bit legalistic to my taste).

But (bit of a side track) I did click on the link, and what I find utterly remarkable is that the guy in the clip doesn't know (or pretends not to know) what an "average" is, somewhere round 3.00. And furthermore completely ignores the fact that there are other racial abilities aside ability scores that make a class more or less suiteable for a certain class. It's just... a very flawed argument. I mean, I can get the whole thing that it's uncomfortable to have some races being smarter or stronger than others, but for crying out loud, just rename "race" in "species" and call it a day, without falling into a line of reasoning that would get you an 'unsatisfactory' mark if you would use it in a paper as a student.

Tbh, I think my group is done with buying new stuff. We enjoyed 5e a lot, and in the pace we are playing we can play for another 5-8 years with modules we haven't played yet and (sub)classes no being tried out. But I can see us go back to 3.5 or even AD&D sooner than buying into a 5.5 where the big changes are in places they weren't needed for my groups.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 03:30 PM

and the answer they can see is that there is a newer book that represents the best current iteration of the material. There's over 50 D&D books at this point, and this is updating 2 of them.

It's unprecedented in 5E and begs the question that are they going to do it again? A book becoming entirely null and void hasn't happened before, and saying 'you still have it' doesn't help in a social game where using it isn't strictly an individual decision.

Again, this is a mountain and mole-hill situation. It's not like they haven't already given you a heads up. If you absolutely need to have it sooner rather then later, buy it before May 16th.

You argument has won over my wallet, filling it with disposable income that was not there before.

Saying 'just buy it now then' is ignoring that being able to just do so on a whim is a privilege.

Warder

2022-05-12, 03:33 PM

Tbh, I think my group is done with buying new stuff. We enjoyed 5e a lot, and in the pace we are playing we can play for another 5-8 years with modules we haven't played yet and (sub)classes no being tried out. But I can see us go back to 3.5 or even AD&D sooner than buying into a 5.5 where the big changes are in places they weren't needed for my groups.

That is where I am at as well. I play 5e with my online group which has a lot of players who are entirely new to D&D and TTRPGs, and the system still works really well for that, changes or no. But I'm not buying any more 5e books - I have the ones I need for the online group - and my RL group has switched to PF2. Though that just reflects where I'm at right now - who knows what'll happen in the coming few years, especially with the 6e (?) business in 2024. I just don't trust WotC to be respectful towards its customers, and I'm very big on consumer rights and good business ethics.

Anymage

2022-05-12, 03:55 PM

Again, this is a mountain and mole-hill situation. It's not like they haven't already given you a heads up. If you absolutely need to have it sooner rather then later, buy it before May 16th.

That's not as good an argument as you think it is. Releasing limited editions to take advantage of FOMO is a well known business tactic. I don't think that's what WotC is actually doing; for one they aren't plastering their front page with LAST CHANCE TO BUY! posts like most FOMO based business strategies do, and for another this update is entirely in line with what they've been saying and doing lately. (Which again people might agree or disagree with, but that's separate from thoughts on these books.) But telling people who were waffling on which books they want to spend money on now or if they even want to spend the money period that they only have a few more days to get them hits the same points.

There is still a fair amount of general distaste for WotC's other choices floating around here and I don't intrinsically mind their being able to patch their game midstream for things like monster or PC race building. But "buy the books now if you really want them, otherwise hold your peace" still can bring FOMO based monetization strategies to mind and cause people to react based on that. Even if (as I assume is the case) that's not the intent of either you or WotC.

Psyren

2022-05-12, 04:09 PM

Ah yes the video you posted in reply to a different person, and posted as a hyperlink as part of your reply. What an obvious and easy-to-find piece of evidence you have provided.

How about you actually write what they said that supports you, instead of linking to a 12 and a half minute long video on a text-based forum?

I did (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644047-Rumor-After-MotMV-is-released-you-won-t-be-able-to-buy-Volos-or-MToF-separately&p=25455055&viewfull=1#post25455055), fairly early on. (And see below.)

Although spoiler: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT NOT SELLING THE OLDER BOOKS.

They talk about changing the races. About the design process for the book in question. I had the entire thing on the side whilst working and didn't hear anything about them yanking older books off sale. And you know what? if it was on there this wouldn't have been an unsubstantiated rumour for so long, as that video was posted in JANUARY.

If you think they said something that explains it, write it out yourself and provide a timestamp, stop hiding behind high noise videos you expect people to sit through and parse through to try and riddle out what you're even referring to.

So let me get this straight. You heard JC say things like:

"We've been unsatisfied for years about the outsize effect a player's race has on their choice of class" (1:35)

and

"The ability score adjustments were giving the incorrect assumption that 'all members of this race are more dextrous/more intelligent than the typical member of this other race,' and that's not the impression we want to give." (2:45)

...and you came away from that thinking they'd go "but who cares, we want to keep leaving that impression and being unsatisfied by supporting that old design, because money right?"

Is that really what you thought their conclusion was going to be? After all that? Seriously?

It's unprecedented in 5E and begs the question that are they going to do it again? A book becoming entirely null and void hasn't happened before, and saying 'you still have it' doesn't help in a social game where using it isn't strictly an individual decision.

It's happened many times. Psionics Handbook anyone? Tome & Blood? Sword & Fist?

You argument has won over my wallet, filling it with disposable income that was not there before.

Saying 'just buy it now then' is ignoring that being able to just do so on a whim is a privilege.

Given that they'd rather you not use it and may even be embarrassed by the contents, people being unable to acquire the old design seems like a positive result.

They gave up on making races anything but humans in funny hats.

"Lizardfolk can have empathy now" means they're "humans in funny hats?"

...How have I not been clear about what I want? I wanted them to wait until an edition change for such massive changes to fundamental design shift.

And I don't. Because you're asking them to forego literal years of evolution, iteration and feedback in favor of stagnant design. And that's just the mechanics, I'm not even bringing up the problematic implications buried in a lot of the racial fluff (which they also want to get rid of.)

Not all changes are equal.

They are game designers tasked with continuing the evolution and progress of the game. Nothing should be off the table or subject to an arbitrary time-limit.

They nuked a significant amount of content around when they made said statements. I spent 30 minutes yesterday googling it and found people talking about, and providing quotes from Monte Cook about various things about 5E that never came to pass.

So now you're calling them oathbreakers over things they planned that ended up not releasing? Do you realize how common that is in the field of game design, never mind just the tabletop hobby?

Another user provided a Sage Advice with a statement they very clearly violated.

If you mean the "won't make changes with errata" quote, I addressed that directly and you didn't respond. The change wasn't made with errata, it was made with a book.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 04:13 PM

It's unprecedented in 5E and begs the question that are they going to do it again? A book becoming entirely null and void hasn't happened before, and saying 'you still have it' doesn't help in a social game where using it isn't strictly an individual decision.

It hasn't become null and void. It just isn't getting sold on D&D beyond. They didn't come out and say "This book is no longer apart of D&D". They're just choosing to not keep up a book that is outdated.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 05:20 PM

I did (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644047-Rumor-After-MotMV-is-released-you-won-t-be-able-to-buy-Volos-or-MToF-separately&p=25455055&viewfull=1#post25455055), fairly early on. (And see below.)

Let me start this reply by clarifying something. This thread is about them stopping the sale of books. This discussion has primarily been about stopping the selling of books. That wasn't covered in the video, because they didn't want to broadcast it like that, and since eit's not in the video, it won't help you. All you can do is point to it and guess what reasons are behind it. You do not know, they did not tell you in the video, you're just justifying what they're doing with things they've said in regards to the successor book.

So let me get this straight. You heard JC say things like:

"We've been unsatisfied for years about the outsize effect a player's race has on their choice of class" (1:35)

and

"The ability score adjustments were giving the incorrect assumption that 'all members of this race are more dextrous/more intelligent than the typical member of this other race,' and that's not the impression we want to give." (2:45)

...and you came away from that thinking they'd go "but who cares, we want to keep leaving that impression and being unsatisfied by supporting that old design, because money right?"

This is pretty radical, bear with me, but they can always release an optional rule to deal with that.

Oh wait, they did! And the new book doesn't fix anything about that problem. It makes floating ASIs standard, but some races are still better suited for some classes than others because of their abilities. Or is everyone clamoring to play the average Wizard/Sorcerer Centaur or Minotaur? Races that very clearly still favour martial builds, and the latter still very clearly favouring Str builds.

Is that really what you thought their conclusion was going to be? After all that? Seriously?

No, my takeaway is that they could have, and should have, handled it with more tact rather than openly using 5E as a test bed. Which they have actually outright said, features coming out in books now are playtesting for later/2024.

Unless my memory has seriously lapsed, playtesting in 5E was meant to be free and handled via the Unearthed Arcana process.

You're making martyrs out of them for trying to fix the game that is so broken it gave them record breaking success.

And just to head off the problematic content thing... This wasn't needed for that. They already excised huge chunks of text with errata that were 'problematic' in their view. That shows that they care about fixing it when they see it, but stopping the sale of the books isn't fixing anything like that, and if it were, why wouldn't they want what people already have to reflect their stance like they were doing?

I'm yanking out that spoiler in case you refer to something I need to control F again in future and simply because it also obscures content from easy perusal.

It's happened many times. Psionics Handbook anyone? Tome & Blood? Sword & Fist?

Ah yes, those long-forgotten 5E books. The beginning of what you quoted explicitly gives context as 5E exclusive.

Given that they'd rather you not use it and may even be embarrassed by the contents, people being unable to acquire the old design seems like a positive result.

And if that is their intent, that is shady business practice that doesn't really achieve anything. All this does is make it harder to pay them for a digital copy, it doesn't stop the digital copies existing.

"Lizardfolk can have empathy now" means they're "humans in funny hats?"

Nope, stripping out anything that made them different from playing a human in a funny hat did.

"The saurian lizardfolk are thought by some sages to be distant cousins of dragonborn and kobolds. Despite their resemblance to those other scaled folk, however, lizardfolk are their own people and have lived on the worlds of the Material Plane since the worlds' creation. Gifted by the gods with remarkable physical defenses and a mystical connection to the natural world, lizardfolk can survive with just their wits in situations that would be deadly for other folk. Because of that fact, many lizardfolk myths state that their people were placed by the gods in the Material Plane to guard its natural wonders.

Lizardfolk have colorful scales and exhibit a wide array of scale patterns. Their individual facial features are as varied as those of lizards."

That is MPMM text about Lizardfolk, they've stripped out any real identity they've had. They're now what, tied to nature and have remarkable defenses? How dissimilar from Tortles. And they actually emphasize that they look like dragonborn and kobolds.

Or do I need to point how every race now lives roughly the same lifespan, and most the same height/weight, as humans?

And I don't. Because you're asking them to forego literal years of evolution, iteration and feedback in favor of stagnant design. And that's just the mechanics, I'm not even bringing up the problematic implications buried in a lot of the racial fluff (which they also want to get rid of.)

You seemed confused about my position for some reason, so I clarified again. You shooting back that you don't want or like something is exactly why it's difficult to feel heard (instead of fought against) when voicing anything in this thread.

We don't have to share the same likes and dislikes. But don't ask me what my position is to turn around and tell me you don't like it. You've made that very clear and I never asked. You're just pushing your opinion and feelings onto others.

They are game designers tasked with continuing the evolution and progress of the game. Nothing should be off the table or subject to an arbitrary time-limit.

Arbitrary time limit? They're the ones that said the next evolution of the game was coming in 2024, not me, not anyone else here. Them.

They set the time and they used, and have since used, the word evolution whilst doing so. So sorry if your argument falls flat here.

So now you're calling them oathbreakers over things they planned that ended up not releasing? Do you realize how common that is in the field of game design, never mind just the tabletop hobby?

...This was outright statements about how the game was going to be. They then nuked their site of posts from that period.

Do you honestly not see how disingenuous that seems in comparison to actually addressing what they said and why it didn't happen?

If you mean the "won't make changes with errata" quote, I addressed that directly and you didn't respond. The change wasn't made with errata, it was made with a book.

...They errata'd the SCAG with a design change. That is explicitly against what they said. Pointing to MPMM as justification is nonsense, it makes it a complete nonstatement if all they have to do is throw out a compendium book to do whatever they want in errata.

Do you seriously not see the point about this? Note: I'm not asking if you agree. I'm not asking if you like it. I'm asking if you understand why some posters, myself included, hold that stance?

It hasn't become null and void. It just isn't getting sold on D&D beyond. They didn't come out and say "This book is no longer apart of D&D". They're just choosing to not keep up a book that is outdated.

They published a different book, whilst removing sale of the previous ones... How is that not trying to sweep them under the carpet so they're forgotten?

They aren't outright saying it in a post... but that's how they're acting.

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-12, 05:30 PM

It's unprecedented in 5E and begs the question that are they going to do it again? A book becoming entirely null and void hasn't happened before, and saying 'you still have it' doesn't help in a social game where using it isn't strictly an individual decision.

You mean like when the 3.5 PHB came out and they stopped printing 3.0?

Or maybe when the DarkSun Revised came out and invalidated the original DarkSun boxset? Domains of Dread invalidating the Red Box?

Or...

There's not anything happening now that hasn't happened before.

Dork_Forge

2022-05-12, 05:46 PM

You mean like when the 3.5 PHB came out and they stopped printing 3.0?

Or maybe when the DarkSun Revised came out and invalidated the original DarkSun boxset? Domains of Dread invalidating the Red Box?

Or...

There's not anything happening now that hasn't happened before.

So what is it about what I wrote that made you skip over where I start with 'in 5E?'

And that is what matters, since a considerable number, if not most, players are new to D&D with this edition.

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-12, 05:58 PM

So what is it about what I wrote that made you skip over where I start with 'in 5E?'

And that is what matters, since a considerable number, if not most, players are new to D&D with this edition.

Things don't exist in a vacuum.

That WotC has a history of doing the thing you say they've never done before is precisely the point I'm making. That it happens to have not happened during the last 8 years doesn't change that there is precedent.

I guess I'm tired of the idea that because a newer crowd hasn't seen something before that it's somehow shocking. The world doesn't usually work like that, being ignorant of something doesn't change the situation on the whole.

It's like when people complained that WotC changing races away from Always Evil or certain characteristics it was some big deal that had never ever happened before. Except Eberron was a 3.X product and Athas, Al'Quadim and such were 2e products and all took an approach of changing the "Norm" for a race. Just because you (Generic you, not calling you out specifically, Dork_Forge) haven't seen something before doesn't mean it's surprising or new, except to you personally.

In a broader sense. Creating something new and no longer selling the old is a common occurrence everywhere, rather something obvious like I can't go by a brand new NES and Mario Brothers vs buying a Switch and Odyssey, or something like the fact that my new copies of Wheel of Time have different covers and various edits made vs my first editions. There's no guarantee that something will be available forever and no responsibility of a publisher to forcibly continue provide things they no longer want to support.

If there were, I'd be out in line for a full set of Deadlands: Hell of Earth books. :)

Keravath

2022-05-12, 06:03 PM

In fairness, Keravath, the errata to SCAG making its Bladesinger identical to the one in Tasha's, came into play at the same time Tasha's was added to the allowed material for AL. So in the moment that happened, both versions were otherwise identical anyway. This situation - barring the possibility that they announce all Monsters of the Multiverse material to be errata against old versions - is a new one to the AL ecosystem.

I would wager that AL will take its queues from DDB. I expect that as long as both options are made available there, both options will be available in AL, once AL guidance is updated to allow MotM races in general. I believe that all three entities - D&D, DDB, and AL - are currently owned and managed by WotC? If so, I see no reason that one group would run differently from the other. They want a more homogenized community, all running by the same rules, because that's an easier community to reach out to, and to monetize.

In fairness :), that is exactly what they did previously with the Swashbuckler rogue archetype that was republished in Xanathar's (as well as other archetypes and races).

In addition, it has been in the AL FAQ since at least Season 7 (ToA):

"My Race Was Reprinted in Another Book!
The most current version of any rule is used—even if it’s reprinted in another book. This does not, however, affect your choice of +1."

So, the question is really whether AL would change the rules it has been using up until now - which is the newest version of a rule always takes precedence - or not.

NeonAnodyne

2022-05-12, 07:17 PM

I can't go by a brand new NES and Mario Brothers vs buying a Switch and Odyssey

Amazingly, you can actually use a Nintendo Switch to buy and play the original Mario Bros with an online subscription, so this may not be the best comparison (though, I mostly agree with your overall point).

A better one might be buying a Philips CD-I to experience Hotel Mario or something, lol.

Planned obsolescence is a sad reality of nearly every hobby with a medium, IMO. The fact they put so much energy in to trying to make 4e work I think caused an upset in the player base, and I suppose it could always happen again. I did enjoy Pathfinder in lieu of any more 3.5e content from Wizards, but even then, I did not think it was ideal.

Witty Username

2022-05-12, 08:31 PM

So, I think there is an undisused point of expectation.
So, the clear expectation going forward is for new players to purchase MotMV. This makes sense as it is effectively a compilation book with an updated ruleset.
If the Volo's and Mordenkienen's books were to remain on the store this would communicate that all 3 books are equal in the eyes of the new player. This creates a situation where the new player buys the incorrect book for the intended table (As I recall, Psyren made a comment at some point to the effect that their table plans on switching to the MotMV version to cut down on number of books required, as an example).
By removing the older books from the store, this means newer players have a better floor in case of confusion. Since the worst case would be buying Mordenkeinen's and Volo's for use at a table that doesn’t use them.
A possible counter argument is that this means new players can't aquire books they need for tables that reject MotMV. This is only partially true though, as tables that use the soon to be out of print books have aquired them already. So they can use their existing resources to mitigate the issue.

In short, for those of us that intend to use the old books, this is an inconvenience. For newer players, this is potentially a bullet dodged (an 80$ bullet by my quick math).

Greywander

2022-05-12, 08:43 PM

Something that I think needs to be understood is that people have different things they want to happen. They have different outcomes they want to create, and thus they will not be able to agree on a course of action. WotC has a goal for 5e, and they're taking actions that will lead to that goal. If you think that outcome is desirable, then you will likely agree with pursuing those actions. However, if someone does not desire that outcome, they will not be convinced that the course of action being taken is the right one.

For example...

Saying that they're removing old and outdated content and replacing it with new and better content is all well and good. They're taking certain actions to achieve a particular outcome. You see the value in that outcome, so you agree with the actions. But not everyone agrees with that outcome. Some people don't see the new content as better, and there are a lot of mixed feelings about new and recent 5e content. I, for example, feel like the old version of Booming Blade was better. Given that, why on earth would you ever expect me to agree with you that removing all references to the old version of Booming Blade and replacing them with the new version of Booming Blade was a good thing? Telling me that they're only replacing it with a "better" version and that I should therefore be happy is never going to convince me, because we disagree on the fundamental premise of your argument.

Likewise, someone who dislikes floating racial ASIs desires a certain outcome. If that's not the outcome you desire, then you're not going to agree with them. Nothing they say about how it give the races more of an identity or whatever is ever going to convince you. You're never going to support a course of action that would bring back static racial ASIs.

So where do we go from here?

I think, first of all, it has to be acknowledged that 5e was originally created with a certain outcome in mind, and the actions of the developers were driving toward that outcome. A lot of people who got into 5e did so specifically because they agreed with the outcome that was being pursued. If they didn't, they would have gone to a different system that better aligned with their desired outcome.

Now the development team has changed, and a different outcome is being pursued. It's only fair that the established fanbase who was invested in the original outcome being pursued might have serious reservations about the new direction. That doesn't necessarily mean that the new direction is bad, only that the fanbase is justified in being unhappy with that new direction. If the game had always been moving toward that outcome, there would be no justification for coming into the fanbase and complaining about how they're doing things. It would be like going to a restaurant you don't like and then complaining about their food. But when someone comes in and changes the menu, the regular patrons are going to notice, and not all of them will be happy with the new menu. Dismissing this as "melodrama" is nothing short of an attempt to force the people you don't like out of the fandom. Something one might call "gatekeeping". "If you don't like it, then leave; you won't be missed."

But what's done is done. For better or for worse, this is the new direction 5e is headed in. Fans of the old direction are well within their rights to complain, but it's doubtful that complaining will accomplish anything. So this is where mature adults would then compromise. Maybe the new dev team can't follow the original design philosophy, maybe they're doing the best they can, and that's to pursue something they actually can do well, even if it isn't the outcome we want. So we can compromise by grudgingly accepting the new direction and continuing to buy their books. But compromise is a two-way street. And this is where a lot of this "melodrama" is coming from; it feels like there's no effort being made to meet us in the middle. It would be trivially easy for them to continue to sell Volo's and MToF, or to stop selling them as standalone titles and instead bundle then for free with MotM. It actually took more effort for them to errata the ancient book that is SCAG than it would have to just release Tasha's and not do anything with SCAG.

This isn't compromise, this is just one side giving and inch while the other side takes a mile. And the message is clear. "Fall in line, or get out."

So again, I predict that 5e will be entering a decline over the next couple years. The 2024 release will either be the thing that saves it, or the thing that kills it off for good. I already know which one I'm expecting, but we'll just have to wait and see to know for sure.

MadBear

2022-05-12, 09:29 PM

They published a different book, whilst removing sale of the previous ones... How is that not trying to sweep them under the carpet so they're forgotten?

They aren't outright saying it in a post... but that's how they're acting.

A bit of a bait and switch to there. I didn't say they weren't trying to to reduce the old bucks popularity. They are trying to sweep it under the rug. They want new players to buy the 1 book that replaces 2 books.

I said the books are not null and void. Null and void would be them deleting it from D&D beyond so that you lost your copy. That'd be messed up.

This is directly new players to the content they want players to see.

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-13, 11:49 AM

Amazingly, you can actually use a Nintendo Switch to buy and play the original Mario Bros with an online subscription, so this may not be the best comparison (though, I mostly agree with your overall point).

A better one might be buying a Philips CD-I to experience Hotel Mario or something, lol.

Planned obsolescence is a sad reality of nearly every hobby with a medium, IMO. The fact they put so much energy in to trying to make 4e work I think caused an upset in the player base, and I suppose it could always happen again. I did enjoy Pathfinder in lieu of any more 3.5e content from Wizards, but even then, I did not think it was ideal.

Very fair, maybe a better example would be Final Fantasy 1? Yeah you can buy the Pixel Remaster but it's not the same. It's got various QoL changes and improvements, it's a little bit easier. It's not the original game.

I think, first of all, it has to be acknowledged that 5e was originally created with a certain outcome in mind, and the actions of the developers were driving toward that outcome. A lot of people who got into 5e did so specifically because they agreed with the outcome that was being pursued. If they didn't, they would have gone to a different system that better aligned with their desired outcome.

I have to say, this reads a little bit like various other game forums I'm part of, where because the forum opinion leans a certain way people mistake that for the actual consumer opinion overall. "A lot of people got into 5e specifically because they agreed with the outcome being pursued." Is a fair statement, but "A lot" doesn't mean majority, or even a significant minority.

My group, for example, has 10 members total. Of those 10, there are 2 of us who are active on forums and heavily involved in talk about the product. There's 1 more that is involved in forums in am ore meme and friendly relaxed approach. The other 7 do not care enough to check stuff like this out. Those 7 also don't mind or care when a new version comes out or what it means for the old versions. They just roll with whatever rules the DM says are standing and move forward. This is purely anecdotal but in general it follows the pattern I've seen for any media (games, books, movies, etc.). Most consumers care only if they enjoy a product, not the "goal" of the product or what certain changes and errata mean.

Telok

2022-05-13, 05:59 PM

who knows what'll happen in the coming few years, especially with the 6e (?) business in 2024. I just don't trust WotC to be respectful towards its customers, and I'm very big on consumer rights and good business ethics.

The 3.5 Tome of Battle errata and 4e online tools are a pretty great track record there.

strangebloke

2022-05-13, 09:06 PM

Very fair, maybe a better example would be Final Fantasy 1? Yeah you can buy the Pixel Remaster but it's not the same. It's got various QoL changes and improvements, it's a little bit easier. It's not the original game.
I understand what you are saying, but I would also say that

(1) There seems to be a fair degree of denial that Planned Obsolescence is what they're doing.
(2) Just because lots of companies (including wotc) do/have done this doesn't mean that I'm happy to see in practice
(2) This remains a pretty extreme example because MTOF has only been out 4 years and exists on the platform that's still being used, and the edition that's still being sold, and its not even a physical product.

And I don't even think MPMM is a bad book! I think the races are more interesting than the ones in volo's. I can also think of good uses for some of the other monster descriptions I've seen. But Volo's also has all my favorite giant and beholder variants, and it annoys me that WotC is intentionally trying to make it impossible to get ahold of them, even though a lot of the stuff in those books isn't getting updated in MPMM (no tiefling variants, no replacements for some other enemies) and aren't even running afoul of the "new design paradigm."

A Storm Giant Quintessant is just kind of a good enemy/monster, yeah?

I have to say, this reads a little bit like various other game forums I'm part of, where because the forum opinion leans a certain way people mistake that for the actual consumer opinion overall. "A lot of people got into 5e specifically because they agreed with the outcome being pursued." Is a fair statement, but "A lot" doesn't mean majority, or even a significant minority.

My group, for example, has 10 members total. Of those 10, there are 2 of us who are active on forums and heavily involved in talk about the product. There's 1 more that is involved in forums in am ore meme and friendly relaxed approach. The other 7 do not care enough to check stuff like this out. Those 7 also don't mind or care when a new version comes out or what it means for the old versions. They just roll with whatever rules the DM says are standing and move forward. This is purely anecdotal but in general it follows the pattern I've seen for any media (games, books, movies, etc.). Most consumers care only if they enjoy a product, not the "goal" of the product or what certain changes and errata mean.

Assuredly, giantitp is a very small fraction of the playerbase, and most players aren't following every new release, but that's not really a defense, yeah? I'm not saying MPMM will do poorly, but new releases depend on people who are eagerly following the release cycle. That's how this whole ball gets rolling.

Witty Username

2022-05-13, 09:08 PM

So I do kinda wonder how this affects us players.
We have 3 proposed groups by the conversation.
Group 1 those of us who have the books we were interested in. As far as I can tell we are mostly fine, we have the issue of acquiring new books for new players we bring in to our existing tables. So, we need to share or copy our stuff in that case. But if we have an existing group with already established players then we have no issues.
Group 2 who is not interested in the existing books, either because they prefer the game without them (PHB only types) or plan on replacing them with the new book. This group is completely unaffected, as they would be not buying the books even if the store front was maintained.
Group 3 the players who are currently in the process of acquiring books, they will filter into group 1 or 2 over time. If they choose group 1, they will have some increased difficulty acquiring books, see Group 1, with the added difficulty that a group of entirely new players won't necessarily have a existing player to share off of.

So this argument is primarily directed towards group 3, specifically the portion that intends to join group 1, and the subset of group 1 that is actively recruiting. How many of us is that?

Also, this comes off to me as a fairly minor issue. This is analogous to a book going out of print, which is less inevitable than it used to be, but still almost certainly going to happen eventually.

Greywander

2022-05-13, 10:26 PM

I'm just baffled by the argument that they're somehow doing the customers a favor by no longer selling some of their content. You can claim that the new content is "better", but I don't find that argument convincing. The seller doesn't get to decide which content is better, the customer does. Again, let me point to the GTA 3 Trilogy remake, which was very poorly received. Maybe not everyone owned the original trilogy, and now that they're hearing about it they might be interested in giving it a try. Except now they can't. The remake might have been better in some ways, but there were still plenty of legitimate reasons people might want the old trilogy, such as mod compatibility. I just can't think of a good reason to yank a product by a reputable company from sale (malware, crypto miners, and other scams, sure, but not reputable products, even badly made ones). If you're worried about someone buying it on accident when there's a "new" version of the same content available, that's easily solved by displaying a message on the store page redirecting them to the "new" version. Or, as I proposed previously, they could just bundle it for free with the "new" version, which would cost them just as much money as pulling it from sale. Except, you know, for all the people who are rushing to buy it now due to FOMO.

My point in all this is that it should be up to the customer what product they buy. These aren't physical books, they don't cost money to print, nor do they take up space on a shelf; the cost to make them available has already been paid, and pulling them from sale doesn't save them any money. They still exist on the servers, and the content is still integrated into DND Beyond. There's just no excuse for these to not remain available for purchase. Then, it's up to each individual customer if it's worth the money to buy it. If the new content is really that much better, people will buy that instead. If the old content is still good, people will pick that up. Some people will buy both, and others will continue to avoid DND Beyond altogether.

Again, it just baffles me that they would do this. I literally can't think of how it might benefit them, it just seems like they're doing it to spite us. Whatever goal they're trying to accomplish is either malicious, or had a better solution. Though if someone can explain how this move makes sense and isn't anti-consumer, I'm willing to listen. It just seems like there are some very simple solutions that would have made everyone happy; one group gets their new races without the Unfortunate Implications, and the other group still has the opportunity to pick up the old races with detailed lore write-ups.

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-13, 11:10 PM

Assuredly, giantitp is a very small fraction of the playerbase, and most players aren't following every new release, but that's not really a defense, yeah? I'm not saying MPMM will do poorly, but new releases depend on people who are eagerly following the release cycle. That's how this whole ball gets rolling.

Again, a very accurate statement.

But to use that sampling of my table. At least three or four of us will buy copies. Of the 3-4 who will I'm the only one active on communities like this and I'm on the indifferent side of this discussion.

Again, I do understand I'm an anecdote, not solid statistics, but I also don't think my group is too far outside the average. The concern over the vision and direction of the game just doesn't seem to be there.

Witty Username

2022-05-14, 01:52 AM

Though if someone can explain how this move makes sense and isn't anti-consumer, I'm willing to listen. It just seems like there are some very simple solutions that would have made everyone happy; one group gets their new races without the Unfortunate Implications, and the other group still has the opportunity to pick up the old races with detailed lore write-ups.

Well, there are a few reasons for something like this.
One being store front, digital stores require some amount of curating for clarity. Reducing the number of books available is one way to improve site navigation. Books with significant overlapping content are an easy drop if this a concern. This is essentially the confusion problem I brought up in my previous post from a different angle.
Another is public face, If the reasoning for race changes for example is to promote a specific image than having for purchase things that conflict with that image makes an organization come off as two-faced.
Poor website setup could also be a factor, maintaining a digital good on an online store "should" not take much effort, but that "should" is doing alot of heavy lifting. Code problems, inefficient setup or any number of other things make this more of an issue that is readily apparent. This is essentially saying "they might not be malicious, just very stupid" so not really a defense, but it could still be a thing.

This could also be an attempt to step into more cohesive design in advance.
For anyone familiar with 3/.5 you might already know what I am talking about. A chunk of supplement books from that edition read incredibly strange, notably the Complete Warrior book, because they were attempting to adopt 3.5 design principles that had not been codified properly. Assuming this is a step into a 5.5 type change, then they could be trying to work out this issue with more deliberate planning, promoting less books and organizing the game into more consice design principles would be an approach they could take. A good one? Eh, I don't know these things.

Now these would be moves that are unlikely to be motivated by being anti-consumer, whether they are or not. My take is it is going to be minor for us either way.

Pex

2022-05-14, 10:24 AM

Havrik

2022-05-14, 12:23 PM

Has it actually been confirmed that VGtM and MToF are going out of print and will no longer be sold in stores? That decision baffles me, because although I haven't yet read MotM, my understanding is that it is strictly a bestiary and a compilation (albeit updated) of the playable monster races from those two books. But it is not a replacement for the two earlier books! Those books had all sorts of deep dives into monster lore, offering sample monster lairs, new subraces, things like diabolical cult boons, tables for customizing monsters, etc. From what I've heard, MotM strips out most of the lore about each monster, making it a diluted version of the original descriptions. (Compare the description of the lizardfolk posted above, to the much longer writeup in Volo's.)

I don't have any problem with a new book that collects and updates stat blocks from earlier books (Xanathar's and Tasha's both included some of this in terms of spells and other elements) but I'm shocked that they would delete the previous books with all their otherwise-unavailable information.

Witty Username

2022-05-14, 12:38 PM

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-14, 01:08 PM

I would imagine the books will go out of print, but not for the conspiracy reasons most think.

Publishers don't just steadily churn out books. They place orders for certain number of books at a time. If they don't have the sales numbers or are choosing to dial down books they just don't order more.

Greywander

2022-05-14, 01:51 PM

Well, there are a few reasons for something like this.
One being store front, digital stores require some amount of curating for clarity. Reducing the number of books available is one way to improve site navigation. Books with significant overlapping content are an easy drop if this a concern. This is essentially the confusion problem I brought up in my previous post from a different angle.
I mean, maybe? There are other ways they could do this, however. For example, they could just make them not show up unless you search for them, and/or derank them in search results unless you search for them specifically. Sort of the digital equivalent of keeping a product in the back instead of on the shelf. Now, were they too lazy to do this? Actually yeah, that's very believable.

Another is public face, If the reasoning for race changes for example is to promote a specific image than having for purchase things that conflict with that image makes an organization come off as two-faced.
And historical revisionism isn't two-faced? They put a lot of time, effort, and money into writing those books that way, on purpose. Pretending like that isn't what they really think is exactly two-faced. If they wanted to be honest, they could have just said they were going in a new direction based on customer feedback. Because that's really all they're doing. Or, perhaps this comes back to the new development team having different ideals to the old development team. But that shouldn't influence the image of the organization, as you called it. Both products were produced by that organization, and pretending that they're not is, again, two-faced. It's also a big middle finger to the team who actually wrote those books.

Again, the organization hired both groups of writers and paid them lots of money to create their respective products. Both products are representative of the organization. Suppressing one of those representations is absolutely two-faced.

Poor website setup could also be a factor, maintaining a digital good on an online store "should" not take much effort, but that "should" is doing alot of heavy lifting. Code problems, inefficient setup or any number of other things make this more of an issue that is readily apparent. This is essentially saying "they might not be malicious, just very stupid" so not really a defense, but it could still be a thing.
Also believable. When your company gets that big, it can sustain a staggering level of incompetence before it starts collapsing. It can also take a long time for anyone to notice something is wrong.

My take is it is going to be minor for us either way.
Well, I don't use DND Beyond and don't plan on ever using it, but I think it's still worth criticizing what I see as an anti-consumer move. Maybe I don't plan on using DND Beyond now, but who knows if I might join a table in the future that uses it?

There is a cynical, borderline conspiracy minded reason to do this. Due to metagame stated philosophical reasons for changes made they want to cleanse themselves of what they think is dirty. Because of legal reasons they can't delete forever the content entirely since people paid for it, but they can quarantine the content.
Ah, I see. So this was an ideologically driven decision to cleanse themselves of spiritual impurity, and they would have gone so far as it erase it completely from history and deny it ever happened, were it not grossly illegal to do so.

I mean, I don't know that I actually disagree with this take; I think that there are some people who only care about the money and are trying to appease a vocal section of their customer base, but I also think there are some people within the company who are ideologically driven and align with that vocal part of the customer base. I just think it's weird to call what I said "conspiracy minded", only to immediately follow that with a statement like this.

I mean, in what world is it normal for a developer to consider past work to be "dirty", and to wish they could delete it from everyone's computers and erase all evidence that it ever existed? Well, that second is actually probably pretty common, just not realistic, so few bother to try. And again, this is a huge middle finger to the previous dev team if they consider their work to be "dirty". This "dirty" work is also what made 5e so hugely popular in the first place, so what they're doing seems like a rather risky move.

Maybe we can just agree that you should never trust WotC blindly. A company is not your friend, and if they stop making good products you can and should stop giving them money. Brand loyalty is a scam.

Havrik

2022-05-14, 03:01 PM

Reading back through the thread, I think there is some confusion that MotM actually replaces VGtM and MToF. It doesn't. At most, it replaces 50% of each book. The other half of the books is full of interesting lore (that may or be not be relevant your campaign, depending on how similar it is to the Forgotten Realms). Why would they just abandon that? It makes no sense to me.

P. G. Macer

2022-05-14, 03:30 PM

Anymage

2022-05-14, 03:50 PM

Ah, I see. So this was an ideologically driven decision to cleanse themselves of spiritual impurity, and they would have gone so far as it erase it completely from history and deny it ever happened, were it not grossly illegal to do so.

For the longest time once a new edition of a game came out it became much harder if not impossible to find the older versions. Whether trying to find 2e d&d books after the release of 3e or trying to play older expansions of wow, the old product simply wasn't around. I could see the dev team simply thinking of them as out of print books or older patches, and wanting to focus on new products instead.

I'm fully aware that both drivethrurpg and wow classic prove that there is a fair amount of interest in old products, and that there are ways to deprioritize/delist these products to make way for the new stuff while still making them available for sale to people who really want to pay for them. I'm just thinking that them viewing it as an obsolete older edition book makes more sense and is more in line with their current behaviors than a cynical cash grab or ideological purge. Them being dumb fits with what we're seeing well enough on its own.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-14, 03:52 PM

Pixel_Kitsune

2022-05-14, 04:02 PM

Except we're still in 5e. No new edition has come out. Sure, if they obsoleted the core, that might fly as an argument. But they didn't. Because they want to disavow things strategically while pretending they haven't. AKA lying through their teeth about their intent.

You're arguing semantics.

They chose to label it "3.5" but in reality that's what they did back then. They decided to stop printing a whole bunch of books in an existing edition and just move forward with new things.

Honestly, if they labeled MP:MoM as the first book in 5.5, then we got a new book that combined all the classes and subclasses from PHB, Xanathar and Tashas, etc, etc. Would it suddenly be okay?

Cause that's the argument you're essentially making. If they slapped a number on the book it'd be okay, but because they didn't it's horrible lying...

Greywander

2022-05-14, 04:21 PM

For the longest time once a new edition of a game came out it became much harder if not impossible to find the older versions.
You're talking about physical books, though. Again, Volo's/MToF is still on DND Beyond, as those who already own it can still use it. It's just not being sold. But it still exists, it's still taking up space on a hard drive somewhere, it's still being downloaded, and it's still integrated into DND Beyond's systems. As I said, these don't cost money to print and they don't take up space on a shelf somewhere; any cost associated with making them available has already been paid, and no money will be saved by pulling them from sale. Even if they completely excised the books from DND Beyond, I doubt it would save them much money, and the outcry from the fans would certainly be far more damaging.

I'm just thinking that them viewing it as an obsolete older edition book makes more sense and is more in line with their current behaviors than a cynical cash grab or ideological purge.
It's not a new edition, though. And they've already announced a "new edition" that will be released in 2024. Though I will say that with the way things have gone, perhaps they should have declared a new edition as soon as they replaced the development team with a different one. A 5.1e, for example. Fully compatible, but with a different design philosophy. They could have told us that the "optional" rules would be the new standard for the new 5.1e, and that a new release of a 5.1e PHB was in progress and slated for release in 2024. Presentation matters, and they're still pretending it's the same game, same edition.

Like, I could understand if a niche book like, say, SCAG went out of print because it just wasn't very popular and it had been years since it had released. A lot of stores might still have unsold physical copies even, so you might still be able to go out and buy it. Especially if the edition in question has an especially long lifespan and lots and lots of books. But... a lot of that just doesn't apply here. As I've said, physical books are one thing, but even then I'd still expect a digital copy to remain available for at least the lifespan of the edition, and I'd expect that you would always be able to find a PDF for sale (or for free) somewhere until the end of time. Furthermore, 5e has had much fewer books than previous editions, so it's not like they're drowning in books or anything. They're not really at the point where they need to remove old books to increase visibility of new books, or anything like that. They've maintained more books for longer, so it's not like they're somehow incapable of doing it now. And plus, 5e has been hugely successful, so if anything they should have more funds to allocate towards these things.

We have an edition that's gained a huge amount of popularity and brought in tons and tons of money for them. So now they're... completely changing the direction of the game, adopting entirely new design philosophies, forsaking old promises, and removing access to the older content. Like, this legit sounds like a movie plot where someone buys/inherits a successful company/business, changes everything about it, and drives it to the brink of bankruptcy. Then, presumably, an old employee shows the new owner how the old owner did things, and the story has a happy ending. I'm not expecting a happy ending here.

Rynjin

2022-05-15, 10:18 PM

You want me to list every major design shift they've done over the years to all of these games? Things like combat design, leveling progression and talent design, itemization, raid compositions and sizes, quest design, environment design, crafting and profession design etc? If you can't believe me that these games changed significantly over the course of a decade, then copy-pasting entire novels of patchnotes is not going to do the job either.

The part that feels disingenuous to me is glossing over the fact that many of these huge design shifts are wildly unpopular and devastating to the game's health.

For example, Cataclysm, and the sea changes that came with it, signaled the start of WoW's long slow decline from cultural mainstay to mostly irrelevance.

The aforementioned recent SWtOR changes are another big case.

The only example of yours I can think of being a huge success if Final Fantasy XIV...and that was less a "change in design" and more "literally a different game". It was a last second BRUTALLY DESPERATE attempt to save the game after it was a colossal failure, and the servers were down for nearly a year before they relaunched it as A Realm Reborn.

It was a success because the previous game was a failure, and almost took down Square Enix ENTIRELY with it. Nothing about that outlier of a situation really applies here.

PhoenixPhyre

2022-05-15, 10:37 PM

The part that feels disingenuous to me is glossing over the fact that many of these huge design shifts are wildly unpopular and devastating to the game's health.

For example, Cataclysm, and the sea changes that came with it, signaled the start of WoW's long slow decline from cultural mainstay to mostly irrelevance.

The aforementioned recent SWtOR changes are another big case.

The only example of yours I can think of being a huge success if Final Fantasy XIV...and that was less a "change in design" and more "literally a different game". It was a last second BRUTALLY DESPERATE attempt to save the game after it was a colossal failure, and the servers were down for nearly a year before they relaunched it as A Realm Reborn.

It was a success because the previous game was a failure, and almost took down Square Enix ENTIRELY with it. Nothing about that outlier of a situation really applies here.

And it should be noted that FFXIV 2.0 was literally and openly burning down the old game entirely and rebuilding from the ground up (the launch trailer was literally the end of the world as everyone knew it, with everyone forgetting the main character entirely!), and has been built around very open and honest communication about what they're doing and why[1], along with really careful work and a ton of loyalty and buy in[2] from the entire dev team. And really didn't change the main ideas, just throwing away the horrible implementation and redoing it (following most of the same basic philosophy). And was, as you say, a complete hail mary pass that had a very small chance of success.

It's the sort of thing you can only do by extreme hard work and an insanely loyal fan base. And requires massive amounts of luck. And even then wasn't a huge shift in design paradigms (more of just reimplementing things and throwing away some seriously stupid implementation ideas).

[1] note that they've delayed a patch (in this case an expansion that literally wrapped up 10 years of story) once, for 2 weeks, for reasons of needing a bit more time to polish stuff. And that came with very open and almost broken-hearted apologies from the producer.
[2] the head of the music department notably wrote a chunk of the music for one expansion while in the hospital being treated for cancer, without telling the rest of the team he was in the hospital (beyond the producer and execs) because he didn't want to delay things. And it's some of the best music of the entire game (which has honestly had amazing music all the way through).