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

[strangebloke]

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/featu...ostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/statu...eview-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]

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]

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]

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]

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/featu...ostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/statu...eview-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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...ostPageIndex=1
or this:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/statu...eview-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]

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]

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

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]

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

[Dork_Forge]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.



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

This, exactly.

Dork_Forge, I'll reply later on.

[Brookshw]

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]

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.

Every thread is meant to exist in a vacuum, as difficult as that is to do sometimes, that's by design of the forum.

And whilst you don't have to, nor should you just automatically, validate someone's thoughts and feelings, doing the exact opposite is not needed either. You can address people's concerns without such loaded commentary about the thoughts themselves.

[strangebloke]

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]

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. But declaring I haven't done the thing I've done is just one more dart being flung my way, so hey.

[Anymage]

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]

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]

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.