One D&D

[Sunseeker]

I don't really see how that's even plausible to claim, given the two OneD&D playtest documents we've seen. Race and background now flow together better, and backgrounds have more mechanical complexity as you now get to pick a feat through them. Classes aren't significantly changing conceptually (specifics for any given class are, I'm talking about the mechanical role of classes in general), but we've also only seen the first draft of three of the 12 classes so far. We haven't seen any rules sections beyond those two, and relevant glossary material to support both, and that glossary material indicates fixes for things like two-weapon fighting and more flexibility for combat options (via unarmed strikes, already). There's no possible way to argue that there's any reduction in skill/ability check functionality, or equipment, or any other aspect of the game; those playtest documents literally haven't come out, and aren't likely to for months as we're likely to get the rest of the classes over the next three playtest documents.

I don't see how you can make claims about the redesign of rules we literally have not had any hints about.

Endus, I've been on this board as long as you have, and as I've told everyone before, this board has absolutely lost any right it had to demand any sort of explanation for my stances and my opinions. You're no exception. Telling me you think I'm wrong doesn't actually mean anything to me. Great, we disagree, I don't care.

I'm not here to engage with you. I posted my thoughts on the new edition, I didn't disagree with you or anyone else, I just said what I thought and that's it.

[Grinning Serpent]

Endus, I've been on this board as long as you have, and as I've told everyone before, this board has absolutely lost any right it had to demand any sort of explanation for my stances and my opinions. You're no exception. Telling me you think I'm wrong doesn't actually mean anything to me. Great, we disagree, I don't care.

I'm not here to engage with you. I posted my thoughts on the new edition, I didn't disagree with you or anyone else, I just said what I thought and that's it.

You're in the wrong place if you're on a *discussion board* with no intention on having discussions. If this is how you feel, why shouldn't everyone just summarily block you and ignore you while you holler your opinions into the ether?

[Sunseeker]

You're in the wrong place if you're on a *discussion board* with no intention on having discussions. If this is how you feel, why shouldn't everyone just summarily block you and ignore you while you holler your opinions into the ether?

By all means be my guest.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Endus, I've been on this board as long as you have, and as I've told everyone before, this board has absolutely lost any right it had to demand any sort of explanation for my stances and my opinions. You're no exception. Telling me you think I'm wrong doesn't actually mean anything to me. Great, we disagree, I don't care.

I'm not here to engage with you. I posted my thoughts on the new edition, I didn't disagree with you or anyone else, I just said what I thought and that's it.

No one has the right to "demand" any explanations from you...but at the same time you don't have the right to demand everyone accept your opinions without challenge. This isn't your blog. This is a discussion forum. If you aren't willing to explain or defend your positions...they can dismissed without any further consideration.

If that's what you want...maybe put something about how you will not respond to any challenges to your opinions in your signature. That way people know not to waste their time responding to you and you will no longer have to explain that your opinions are above any criticism.

[Grinning Serpent]

By all means be my guest.

I think you missed the point. The point was that you should literally just stop posting on a discussion board if you are not here to engage in discussions. You are literally trolling to be doing otherwise.

[Witchblade77]

not going to contribute to the argument, but aside from that... in my personal experience of DnD - you can do whatever you want. you can stick to earlier editions, play home brew games, etc. my previous game was home brew based on pathfinder, not even sure which edition, we just kinda adjusted as we went along. my current game is 5th edition based, but again homebrew, so rules get adjusted as the story progresses to make it more fun. if any of my games in a future will use the new edition? I will look it up and if I don't like it, I would just bow out of that campaign and find the one that works for my preferences instead.

or in other words, as far as I'm concern, these rules are not rules as much as guidelines and there is never any obligation to adhere to all of the. you CAN pick and chose what you play and how you play it.

P.S. I've only been actively and somewhat regularly playing tabletop for about 3 years, so I wouldn't call myself an experienced player, but TBH even if I was - I will always prefer simpler systems. less to memorize and get bogged down in during combat = more time to spend on roleplaying and actual people interactions. but that's just me.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

or in other words, as far as I'm concern, these rules are not rules as much as guidelines and there is never any obligation to adhere to all of the. you CAN pick and chose what you play and how you play it.

Yeah, in pretty much every rulebook for any RPG system I have ever read there has been a statement along the lines of "the rules are guidelines... use as many or as few as makes sense for your games".

"You are the final arbiter of the rules"

-Gary Gygax

These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old “laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

“In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination.”

- Basic D&D

It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.”

- AD&D DMG

"When everyone gathers around the table to play, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside of the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbitrator of the rules within the game. Good players recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in the rulebook."

- DMG 3.5

As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them.

-DMG 5E

[Muzjhath]

not going to contribute to the argument, but aside from that... in my personal experience of DnD - you can do whatever you want. you can stick to earlier editions, play home brew games, etc. my previous game was home brew based on pathfinder, not even sure which edition, we just kinda adjusted as we went along. my current game is 5th edition based, but again homebrew, so rules get adjusted as the story progresses to make it more fun. if any of my games in a future will use the new edition? I will look it up and if I don't like it, I would just bow out of that campaign and find the one that works for my preferences instead.

or in other words, as far as I'm concern, these rules are not rules as much as guidelines and there is never any obligation to adhere to all of the. you CAN pick and chose what you play and how you play it.

P.S. I've only been actively and somewhat regularly playing tabletop for about 3 years, so I wouldn't call myself an experienced player, but TBH even if I was - I will always prefer simpler systems. less to memorize and get bogged down in during combat = more time to spend on roleplaying and actual people interactions. but that's just me.

If that's how you feel, and maybe your group as a whole, I'd advice looking to systems not DnD. As even 5e, while "simpler" has a tonne of stuff and abilities etc just lying around.
Generally the fewer "special abilities" a character has, the less people need to think during combat to remember just what those things do. Compared a Monk's round to the Wizard. The monk will do 1 of 4 things and will likely seldom forget what they do. The wizard needs the book with their spells to remember what they do.

I'd also say "simpler systems" might not be what you mean either. GURPs is complex as crap, but most characters will have fewer options in combat than a DnD character. (The complexity sits in different areas).

[Witchblade77]

If that's how you feel, and maybe your group as a whole, I'd advice looking to systems not DnD. As even 5e, while "simpler" has a tonne of stuff and abilities etc just lying around.
Generally the fewer "special abilities" a character has, the less people need to think during combat to remember just what those things do. Compared a Monk's round to the Wizard. The monk will do 1 of 4 things and will likely seldom forget what they do. The wizard needs the book with their spells to remember what they do.

I'd also say "simpler systems" might not be what you mean either. GURPs is complex as crap, but most characters will have fewer options in combat than a DnD character. (The complexity sits in different areas).

DnD is not just systems though, its setting and its lore. even homebrew campaigns still benefit from the worldbuilding. I have played tabletop besides DnD/pathfinder including completely from scratch worlds - and worldbuilding is a toughest thing to handle, at least it was for me.

once you have a general setting full of locations, characters and events you can build around, then adjusting it to your specific campaign is much easier. and DnD specific setting and lore is something I was interested even before actively playing myself, so....

in any case, yeah, my cleric's initial choice of abilities is a full on card deck, but once I decide on my direction and narrow it down - I'm not using entire deck at any given time, so that too simplifies things. sometimes simpler just means you have to narrow down and specialize and work within those parameters within broader setting of many choices, not that there are fewer choices to begin with (when I say deck - this is what I'm talking about https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Drag...dp/B08H1BQ2VZ/ , makes it easier to refer to specifics vs looking it up in a book and I know there is an app, but I find physical flashcards easier to use when at the table. my cleric who was my very first group based in person character - has official deck. my later characters just get home made index/flash cards)

[Ashana Darkmoon]

DnD is not just systems though, its setting and its lore. even homebrew campaigns still benefit from the worldbuilding. I have played tabletop besides DnD/pathfinder including completely from scratch worlds - and worldbuilding is a toughest thing to handle, at least it was for me.

once you have a general setting full of locations, characters and events you can build around, then adjusting it to your specific campaign is much easier. and DnD specific setting and lore is something I was interested even before actively playing myself, so....

in any case, yeah, my cleric's initial choice of abilities is a full on card deck, but once I decide on my direction and narrow it down - I'm not using entire deck at any given time, so that too simplifies things. sometimes simpler just means you have to narrow down and specialize and work within those parameters within broader setting of many choices, not that there are fewer choices to begin with (when I say deck - this is what I'm talking about https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Drag...dp/B08H1BQ2VZ/ , makes it easier to refer to specifics vs looking it up in a book and I know there is an app, but I find physical flashcards easier to use when at the table. my cleric who was my very first group based in person character - has official deck. my later characters just get home made index/flash cards)

This is true but yeah, I think there are a TON of people who play d20 and D&D in particular mostly because they can't find ppl to play other systems or don't know better or just inertia (the last one was me for a very long time!). But I'd highly recommend giving something else a try, especially if you play with a a couple friends. In a session or two you might never look back.

I'm a big fan of Genesys, personally, but it's more of a toolkit than a setting. You could try:

Shadow of the Beanstalk, the cyberpunk version of the rules. Or if you like Star Wars, grab one of the starter adventures - the Age of Rebellion one would probably be fun with Andor on TV.

And of course there are many others. I think Genesys/SWRPG is a great blend between narrative focus while keeping a little bit of crunch (and the dice are amazing), but there's lots of simple systems like C'Thulu and Traveler as well!

[Witchblade77]

This is true but yeah, I think there are a TON of people who play d20 and D&D in particular mostly because they can't find ppl to play other systems or don't know better or just inertia (the last one was me for a very long time!). But I'd highly recommend giving something else a try, especially if you play with a a couple friends. In a session or two you might never look back.

I'm a big fan of Genesys, personally, but it's more of a toolkit than a setting. You could try:

Shadow of the Beanstalk, the cyberpunk version of the rules. Or if you like Star Wars, grab one of the starter adventures - the Age of Rebellion one would probably be fun with Andor on TV.

And of course there are many others. I think Genesys/SWRPG is a great blend between narrative focus while keeping a little bit of crunch (and the dice are amazing), but there's lots of simple systems like C'Thulu and Traveler as well!

my last one shot was C'thulu and my last continuous discord game was Traveler and I greatly enjoyed both (my traveler character was a sort of riff on Faye Valentine from cowboy beebop and she was a blast to play ) haven't tried the others you mentioned, but definitely something to keep in mind - I looked up Genesys and you are right, dice are amazing . one of these days I'll also give Vampire the Masquerade a try (the tabletop version, I've only done video games)

That said I genuinely do enjoy the DnD setting so I don't don't plan on giving up on that one just yet

[Ashana Darkmoon]

my last one shot was C'thulu and my last continuous discord game was Traveler and I greatly enjoyed both (my traveler character was a sort of riff on Faye Valentine from cowboy beebop and she was a blast to play ) haven't tried the others you mentioned, but definitely something to keep in mind - I looked up Genesys and you are right, dice are amazing . one of these days I'll also give Vampire the Masquerade a try (the tabletop version, I've only done video games)

That said I genuinely do enjoy the DnD setting so I don't don't plan on giving up on that one just yet

I think once you try the Genesis dice it becomes hard to go back (assuming the GM and players get into spending symbols in fun ways)!

[Muzjhath]

WotC literally can't do anything of the sort, with regards to independent third-party publishers like Kobold Press; they're not bound by licensing agreements in the first place. And with regards to DMsGuild content itself, there's no benefit to restricting the license; it would just hurt WotC's own bottom line. And if we're talking about the Basic Rules and the OGL license; WotC went back to that after 4e for a reason, and there hasn't been any suggestion they'll be getting rid of it that I've seen. I don't take baseless fearmongering and paranoia as a legitimate argument.

To return to this!
https://gamerant.com/dungeons-and-dr...-no-ogl-rumor/
More and more leaks and rumours around them not using an OGL for D&Done nor publish an SRD or equivalent for it.

I'm sure DM's Guild and Beyond D&D will still allow some form of fan-created things. But then WotC will take 50% or so of revenue.
Will it still be possible for third party devs to create and publish professionally for D&Done? Probably, but far more of a headache for both them and players.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

To return to this!
https://gamerant.com/dungeons-and-dr...-no-ogl-rumor/
More and more leaks and rumours around them not using an OGL for D&Done nor publish an SRD or equivalent for it.

I'm sure DM's Guild and Beyond D&D will still allow some form of fan-created things. But then WotC will take 50% or so of revenue.
Will it still be possible for third party devs to create and publish professionally for D&Done? Probably, but far more of a headache for both them and players.

I think that, until someone can confirm those rumours, it's not worth getting too worked up about.

[Endus]

To return to this!
https://gamerant.com/dungeons-and-dr...-no-ogl-rumor/
More and more leaks and rumours around them not using an OGL for D&Done nor publish an SRD or equivalent for it.

I'm sure DM's Guild and Beyond D&D will still allow some form of fan-created things. But then WotC will take 50% or so of revenue.
Will it still be possible for third party devs to create and publish professionally for D&Done? Probably, but far more of a headache for both them and players.

I'm really not gonna take "unconfirmed rumors" as something worth debating. It's also weirdly silly; they've said that OneD&D will be backwards-compatible with 5e, and while that's obviously half the story (there's clearly gonna be major under-the-hood changes, particularly with class and race design), it's still not changing that much. Exactly how Grappling works is changing, but the notion that some monster can Grapple as an attack really isn't. So third-party developers can just write under the 5e OGL, using the terms that are available for use there, and use those same terms with the internal intent that they are used in relation to OneD&D, and they're legally in the clear. And most of those terms aren't changing, it's just the mechanics underneath them which are, and third-party books don't need to cite those new mechanics in the first place.

That's the biggest reason I think this is all bullshit; even if it's true, it won't have the effect the fearmongers are suggesting it will, because the 5e OGL will still exist and covers 90% of things, if not more.

[Muzjhath]

I'm really not gonna take "unconfirmed rumors" as something worth debating. It's also weirdly silly; they've said that OneD&D will be backwards-compatible with 5e, and while that's obviously half the story (there's clearly gonna be major under-the-hood changes, particularly with class and race design), it's still not changing that much. Exactly how Grappling works is changing, but the notion that some monster can Grapple as an attack really isn't. So third-party developers can just write under the 5e OGL, using the terms that are available for use there, and use those same terms with the internal intent that they are used in relation to OneD&D, and they're legally in the clear. And most of those terms aren't changing, it's just the mechanics underneath them which are, and third-party books don't need to cite those new mechanics in the first place.

That's the biggest reason I think this is all bullshit; even if it's true, it won't have the effect the fearmongers are suggesting it will, because the 5e OGL will still exist and covers 90% of things, if not more.

While I've personally not read it, my friends who do enjoy 5e have and most are of the firm opinion that the "backwards compatible" is just pure marketing.
They've so far changed quite core things in the play-test releases when it comes to classes.

[Endus]

While I've personally not read it, my friends who do enjoy 5e have and most are of the firm opinion that the "backwards compatible" is just pure marketing.
They've so far changed quite core things in the play-test releases when it comes to classes.

It's "backwards compatible" in the sense that if they refer to "Grapple" or "Advantage" or the like, there's a mechanic that's got that name that you can translate over, even if it might work differently in OneD&D (Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't, so far as I know, but it's unique to 5e which is why I mention it).

And third-party books don't generally explain how mechanics like that work. They just list that a monster can Grapple with their attack. That's protected under 5e's OGL, even if it's designed to work for OneD&D's mechanics for Grappling.

A lot of people mistook "backwards compatible" with "exactly the same system as", and that's not what the word means. It means you could take a monster from a 5e book and use it, as written, in a OneD&D game. Some of its abilities may function differently because core mechanics have changed, it may not reflect OneD&D monster design, but it's compatible.

I'm one of the freaks who hits the 200-word cap in every comment box on the play-test surveys (and most UA for several years now), so I'm pretty familiar with the actual changes they've made.

[LilSaihah]

Sometimes I write posts that go along the lines of "setting x aside, is y even possible..." but honestly "One DND will prohibit third-party content from being published" is making me want to write two posts.

One of them starts with "Setting whether it's a good idea aside, is it even legally or practically possible to prevent the publishing of such?" because it really doesn't even seem practically possible. Just on the back of "One DND is an extension upon 5e DND" you could just say your third party supplement is also an extension upon 5e and sidestep the problem. On top of that, surely you could just distribute your materials for free (or for 'free') and have a Patreon or something if you're really busting to make money off it.

The other one is "how fucking dense do you have to be to think this is a good idea", all Pathfinder has to do is say 'sup its ya boy pathfinder you can publish your third party crap through me' and you shed that much more market share.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The other one is "how fucking dense do you have to be to think this is a good idea", all Pathfinder has to do is say 'sup its ya boy pathfinder you can publish your third party crap through me' and you shed that much more market share.

I mean, it's pretty much the exact situation that lead to the foundation of Pathfinder in the first place.

[Grinning Serpent]

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2022...g-ogl-1-1.html

Told you so. Wizards is clearly looking to try and monopolize the "d20 space" with One D&D. I strongly suspect this is going to backfire on them, though. It took a really, *really* long time before Wizards books outnumbered Paizo books in the D&D section of the game shops after 4E drove so many players away to tinker with "3.75E" instead.

The concerning part about this is that it is very clearly targeting third-party solutions for character sheets, virtual tabletops, etc. And it also seems to hit content creators who make above a certain threshold - there's wording about having to report sales in excess of $50,000 annually. I'm assuming this would affect people whose livelihoods come from commissions and the like, since that's technically using WotC's intellectual property?

It's not all doom and gloom, but it's concerning they felt the need to change anything at all. OGL 1.0 seemed to be doing quite well for both Wizards, creators, and players. About the only unequivocal positive I can see from this is that it's banning out the possibility of NFTs, lol. Well, unless Wizards are the ones making and selling them...

FWIW, Wizards are also kind of fucking up with Magic at the same time. They've been doing some pretty unsavory things in that space over the past year or two, crashing the value of collections, and so it seems like there's been a push to escape the space. Short-term gains but long-term losses. But I haven't paid for Magic or played cardboard in several years at this point, so I don't have a horse in that race other than "who let a greedy dumbass be in charge of taking care of your money-printing cow?"