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

[Psyren]

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? 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]

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]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Roll20 will also be removing Volo’s Guide and Mordenkainen’s Tome from its Marketplace, per this social media post (Link is to Facebook and so may be blocked if you’re accessing the web from work).

[Psyren]

Spoiler: @Jervis

Show

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

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.

Spoiler: @Dork_Forge

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Brookshw]

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

Better late than never

[GooeyChewie]

Better late than never

Not for the seller!

[Brookshw]

Not for the seller!

The seller can worry about themselves.

[Tanarii]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/d...CAG-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]

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]

Here's the errata link for the SCAG: https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/d...CAG-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 so you'd have no idea what I'm talking about anyway. So how exactly does that help?