How do you feel about the future of D&D after the official announcements?

Umbran · Jan 12, 2012

JoeGKushner said:
I hate a lot of things that WoTC did to the community and the game.

It seems to me that many of those wounds were self-inflicted - WotC doesn't have orbital mind control lasers that make us treat each other badly. We do that to ourselves.

Not that their marketing was flawless - some of it was pretty poor. But a lot of the damage was caused by self-referential circle-beatings among us that shouldn't be placed in WotC's lap.

Azgulor · Jan 12, 2012

I voted Neutral.

Pathfinder's my game and I've left D&D before (in the 2e days), so it's largely immaterial to me if there's a D&D game in print, let alone a new edition.

My negative reaction is due primarily to two factors:

1. The fact that after 4e, WotC has been relegated to the "Put up or shut up" column. I don't wish them ill, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.

2. The knee jerk reaction that many of the folks (not all 4e fans, but certainly many vocal ones...) that predicted the folding of Paizo for not following the "one true way", that 4e was a spectacular success, that said the OGL was crap, and that 4e was the pinnacle of RPG design have, without even an attempt at a Will save, gone all in and jumped aboard the 5e bandwagon.

#1 doesn't really change my game, my RPG preferences, or my current or future gaming, so it doesn't warrant changing the vote to negative.

#2 is about the 4e/5e fanbase, not the game itself, and really shouldn't influence my opinion of WotC's announcement.

So Neutral it is.

Harlekin · Jan 12, 2012

Umbran said:
It seems to me that many of those wounds were self-inflicted - WotC doesn't have orbital mind control lasers that make us treat each other badly. We do that to ourselves.

Not that their marketing was flawless - some of it was pretty poor. But a lot of the damage was caused by self-referential circle-beatings among us that shouldn't be placed in WotC's lap.

You are saying way too many sensible thing s today, i can't XP you twice. It is nice though, that your point is immediately illustrated by the post following yours.

Kzach · Jan 12, 2012

I feel neutral on the matter.

On the one hand, I'm all for change and progress and innovation and trying new things. I'm firmly in the camp of, "I'll try anything once, twice if I like it."

But on the other hand, I'm a pessimist and skeptic by nature and everything about this is just screaming at me, "Failure, failure, warning D&D player, warning!"

The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.

Yet here we are, in the post-4e era; and let's not kid ourselves, 4e is now dead. Announcing a new edition is the nail of all nails. I certainly won't be looking at any new 4e content and have no reason to renew my DDI sub.

What REALLY worries and puzzles me is that they don't seem to have learned any lessons from their predecessors... or themselves. They're promising everyone, everything, and yet have nothing concrete to offer anyone, anything. So now here we are, post-4e era, in EXACTLY the same position we were in pre-4e when 4e was announced and GleeMax was a buzzword and the Virtual Table Top was going to revolutionise the game and 4e was teh awwsomnest!!? editionz EVAR!

Yeah. And it's snowing in Hell right now, right?

pauljathome · Jan 12, 2012

Kzach said:
The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.

Presumably the reason is the open playtest. Hard to do that without announcing the new edition.

FireLance · Jan 12, 2012

I voted positive. I've pretty much liked every new edition of D&D more than the last, and I see no reason why this trend shouldn't continue.

And if 5e doesn't shape up to be something I want to play, I can mod the heck out of 4e and run it however I want.

Ahnehnois · Jan 12, 2012

Harlekin said:
To me this looks like a Hail-Mary Pass to keep Hasbro from mothballing D&D.

That much is certain.

I don't see how this can succeed. They either maintain most of the modern design in 4ed or they return to the classical design of the older editions. Either way is going to leave one half of the fandom outside.

Wait, what?

Having Monte at the helm suggests that they are shooting for the classical design. This is probably the worse choice. Even though there are more gamers playing a classical version of D&D, these players have established themselves as PF or OSR players rather than as D&D players and are therefore harder to win.

Mearls still works there, doesn't he? And frankly, Monte Cook has done quite a bit of innovative stuff since he left D&D.

My expectation is that 5th will do somewhat worse than 4th edition and that lack of success will cause Hasbro to abandon the D&D TTRPG.

In all honestly, anything they put out I think will last for at least as long as 4e. As to whether Hasbro will continue D&D, that I am kind of pessimistic about. But if they don't, someone will, with or without the trademark.

Ahnehnois · Jan 12, 2012

Kzach said:
The thing that puzzles me beyond measure is why they felt the need to announce it NOW. It's not like this will boost 4e sales. There just seems like every reason NOT to announce it now and no reason to announce it, at all.

Anticipation is a powerful motivator. As the flurry of non-gamer news articles flows, it's clear they've generated buzz, which I think was their intent. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about", and D&D was dying quietly. The buzz may give sales a quick boost, although I agree it probably won't help the company in the medium term.

Perhaps they also felt it best to give the diehards an advance warning. Many people were surprised by the 4e release, which I believe was announced less than a year in advance (historians?).

What REALLY worries and puzzles me is that they don't seem to have learned any lessons from their predecessors... or themselves. They're promising everyone, everything, and yet have nothing concrete to offer anyone, anything. So now here we are, post-4e era, in EXACTLY the same position we were in pre-4e when 4e was announced and GleeMax was a buzzword and the Virtual Table Top was going to revolutionise the game and 4e was teh awwsomnest!!? editionz EVAR!

Yeah. And it's snowing in Hell right now, right?

Their purportedly boundless optimism is kind of a concern. Then again, would you rather they set their sights lower? "We'll make a brand of D&D so complicated only we can play it!" "We'll make D&D fun-but only for MMO players!" "We'll make D&D however we please and we don't care what you think!" These would hardly be viable business slogans.

Truth Seeker · Jan 12, 2012

Neutral--The signs of it coming...were there. A little suprise on the early date.

Beyond that...just be observing.

Harlekin · Jan 12, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
Wait, what?

Mearls still works there, doesn't he? And frankly, Monte Cook has done quite a bit of innovative stuff since he left D&D.

What innovative stuff by Monte are you thinking about? An I overlooking something obvious? For me, Monte is a strict classic RPG guy who has never been interested in modern RPG design goals. Moreover hiring him back to WOTC best serves as a signal of continuity to 3.x, not as a way to innovate the game.

And I'm not even sure Mearls has done much more than continue the work of previous innovators at WOTC.

Ahnehnois said:
In all honestly, anything they put out I think will last for at least as long as 4e. As to whether Hasbro will continue D&D, that I am kind of pessimistic about. But if they don't, someone will, with or without the trademark.

It might last as long, but I'm expecting it to be commercially less successful. Hence it will be abandoned and D&D will disappear. Whether other OGL games are D&D without the trademark is another discussion.