So, im not following this too closely, as I’m moving away from #dnd, but from what I gather from my timeline, it appears that #OneDND is basically just a bunch of rearranging and no actually improvements. There’s no upside in going along with it, aside from avoiding the risk that WotC is going to discontinue legacy support on #DnDBeyond, correct?
What this boils down to is a scenario where the community is forced to shell out tons of money to get new versions of books we already own.
The argument about whether or not this is a new version is largely semantics. The issue is, that it’ll require players to re-buy books they already own in order to stay up to date, whatever you want to call it.
Incidentally #Paizo are doing the exact same thing with their Update of PF2.
@Morgunin@PenPaperDice personally I'd like it more if people really would start owning their rules like in the early hobby. like, so "yes, it's based on 5e, but these are my campaign rules".
people seem so focused on playing by the book though it seems hard to do
@kyonshi@Morgunin yup. Dunno when it started. I really embrace something like Swords and Wizardry nowadays. It feels like having more house/campaign rules then rules in the book. And that is a good thing! More fiddling around what sparks joy, then what the book establishes as rules.
@PenPaperDice@Morgunin it comes with complexity. the more rules are in there the harder it becomes to change something without breaking something else. so I guess the problem started with ADnD 1st.
With Swords and Wizardry you can just hack away a part and replace it with something else and barely affect anything,
Add comment