D&D 5E A Modest Proposal to Unify the Fanbase without D&D Next

Tony Vargas · Jul 22, 2012

Harlock said:
If D&D Next is looking at unifying players from all editions, why couldn't there be a module that added the 4e overlay to the simpler core rules?

Well, the way it's set up now it couldn't, because critical aspects of 4e rest on a common advancement structure for all classes, and 5e already has multiple advancement schemes. In that sense, it's already more complicated than 4e, and you can't overlay consistency and balance on inconsistency and imbalance.

Or 3.5, 3, 2, 1, BECMI, B/X, OD&D?

0D&D, AD&D 1&2, and BECMI/BX are all pretty similar and 5e is starting out pretty similar to them, so that'd be easy. 3.0/5 would be more of a challenge - the biggest part of the challenge being 3e-enough compared to the SRD and Pathfinder.

Also flawed is the assumption that "numerous OGL/3.5 fans and Pathfinder converts who have refused to transition to 4E is a sore spot with Wizards of the Coast, representing a substantial loss of revenue and support for the current edition of D&D."

That's certainly true. There are also fans of earlier editions who rejected 3e and never tried 4e or Essentials (though that last was specifically targeting them). :shrug:

Neuroglyph · Jul 23, 2012

Harlock said:
Has anyone pointed out that the OP's premise is flawed?

Also flawed is the assumption that "numerous OGL/3.5 fans and Pathfinder converts who have refused to transition to 4E is a sore spot with Wizards of the Coast, representing a substantial loss of revenue and support for the current edition of D&D." Despite your claims at being inclusive, you sure are excluding a great many fans of other editions of the game who didn't support 4e. D&D is more than 3rd and 4th editions. The OSR and retro-clone movements show that there is still substantial revenue to be gained from appealing to those audiences.

Please check out my blog where I referenced bringing back support for ALL EDITIONS of D&D... I never suggested that I was only looking for support for 3.5 or 4E, but somehow the discussion trended that way.

I find it strange that folks keep arguing that the content-provider business model is unprofitable, claiming that WotC can't make enough money doing it. First, WotC is more than just D&D... it has MtG and its boardgame lines to draw money on.

So as other posters have pointed out: How much profit is enough?

Point is, none of us have the hard data from WotC and Hasbro to be sure that the old model is a huge success over a new model. But considering how many 4E gamers will be alienated by D&D Next, how many AD&D, 2nd Ed, 3.5, and Paizo gamers will likely ignore it, isn't trying to unite the fanbase under one edition rather counter-intuitive to simply reaching out to all D&D fans with support and new products?

El Mahdi · Jul 23, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Well, the way it's set up now it couldn't, because critical aspects of 4e rest on a common advancement structure for all classes, and 5e already has multiple advancement schemes. In that sense, it's already more complicated than 4e, and you can't overlay consistency and balance on inconsistency and imbalance.

Lack of a common advancement structure does not necessarily make a system inconsistent or imbalanced. It just makes it's underlying structure different and incompatible with the structure used in 4E. 5E is simply using a different concept for balance and consistency. BTW, a consistency and balance that is still under development. It is not a finished product, and should be spoken of that way. Not spoken of in absolutes.

The above characterization of 5E as having an inconsistent and imbalanced advancement structure, especially as we've only seen incredibly small glimpses into what that structure is: are grossly premature; an oversimplification or just straight-up wrong evaluation of 5e's design; and seem to me as derogative simply for the misguided purpose of denigrating it compared to 4E.

Less subjectiveness and veiled denigration (and not so veiled denigration), and more openness and objectiveness would be a wonderful breath of fresh air to these conversations.

El Mahdi · Jul 23, 2012

Neuroglyph said:
Please check out my blog where I referenced bringing back support for ALL EDITIONS of D&D... I never suggested that I was only looking for support for 3.5 or 4E, but somehow the discussion trended that way.

You're right. It may be that since you seem to be advocationg that WotC should not be making a 5th Edition, when many people (including me) seem to want it (for varying reasons), and you seem to be emphasizing support for 3E and 4E; people are percieving your motives as pro-3E/4E and anit-5E. Their perception is not entirely true, however your statements and your petition are anti-5E...and to many, that's a problem.

Neuroglyph said:
I find it strange that folks keep arguing that the content-provider business model is unprofitable, claiming that WotC can't make enough money doing it...snip...

I however do share the belief with you that WotC can make money supporting older edtions. I think it's foolish not to. But for whatever reasons (truly known only to them), they haven't. However, with the release of the AD&D core reprints, the coming 3.5E core reprints, and hints at returning pdf's (or at least a form of ownable, dowloadable, electronic format for previous edition materials); they seem to be at least dipping their toes into it and trending in that direction. That's a very good thing IMO, but I'm expecting it will be series of very small steps toward what you and I would like from them. However, we may need to be prepared for it may be a painfully slow process; but at least they seem to be showing progress.

Neuroglyph · Aug 1, 2012

El Mahdi said:
You're right. It may be that since you seem to be advocationg that WotC should not be making a 5th Edition, when many people (including me) seem to want it (for varying reasons), and you seem to be emphasizing support for 3E and 4E; people are percieving your motives as pro-3E/4E and anit-5E. Their perception is not entirely true, however your statements and your petition are anti-5E...and to many, that's a problem.

I however do share the belief with you that WotC can make money supporting older edtions. I think it's foolish not to. But for whatever reasons (truly known only to them), they haven't. However, with the release of the AD&D core reprints, the coming 3.5E core reprints, and hints at returning pdf's (or at least a form of ownable, dowloadable, electronic format for previous edition materials); they seem to be at least dipping their toes into it and trending in that direction. That's a very good thing IMO, but I'm expecting it will be series of very small steps toward what you and I would like from them. However, we may need to be prepared for it may be a painfully slow process; but at least they seem to be showing progress.

Well personally, I question the need for D&D Next - a game which is mostly 3.0, with 2nd ed monsters, and house rules thrown on top - if we are going to have support for all previous editions? I mean sure, I suppose you could play the game that's being cobbled together from spare parts, but I would think most people would prefer to stick with the edition that already speaks to them from among the previous ones.

As to my support of the 3.5 crowd, yes, I want WotC to especially support that group again, because I think the way they handled the release of 4E caused the Edition Wars, and generated alot of bad blood and hurt feelings in the gaming community. While I don't play OGL anymore, I feel that the d20 D&D crowd deserve some luvin' after WotC kicked them to the curb, and to me, D&D Next is what I would call "making up" with that part of our community.

Morrus · Aug 4, 2012

Neuroglyph said:
Well personally, I question the need for D&D Next - a game which is mostly 3.0, with 2nd ed monsters, and house rules thrown on top - if we are going to have support for all previous editions? I mean sure, I suppose you could play the game that's being cobbled together from spare parts, but I would think most people would prefer to stick with the edition that already speaks to them from among the previous ones.

But I like some things about all editions; I dislike some things about all editions. Not one of them claims that place you designate as the one that "already speaks to me". All of them speak to me. None of them do quite enough.

I hope that D&D Next will be that edition. The one that has those things I like about previous editions, and few of the things I dislike. Maybe it will and maybe it won't; but I'm willing to take a look and see.

I get a petition that says "Neuroglyph doesn't like 5E; stop him buying it!"; I don't get one which says "Neuroglyph doesn't like 5E; stop Morrus buying it!" If you want to support all editions, why can't you support this new one, too? Why not have a petition which says "Support older editions AS WELL" instead of your current one which says "support older editions INSTEAD"?

Scylla · Aug 5, 2012

Two weeks ago I proposed something similar to the OP in my own blog:

"At this point, for better or worse, the D&D market is dreadfully splintered. Getting everyone under one tent is impossible, methinks. It's my own personal belief that WotC should, despite the splintering of R&D staff resources and ad budgets, try to support two editions. And by that I mean actively support them via regular new adventures and supplements (though I loudly applaud their reprinting the 1e books this month). They should make a true 4.5e, to keep the hardcore 4e fans happy, because ultimately that's all a good portion of those folks will accept. And they should make a real old-school D&D, a 2e with some important (but not flavor changing) innovations culled from the newer editions."

I don't feel WotC should stop their development refining the system, but clearly a lot of folks were happy with 3e and didn't move on to 4e, and now it's also clear to me that a lot of 4e fans don't want a 5e (but rather a 4.5). (I base the former on Pathfinder's success and the latter on numerous posts at the WotC boards.)

I think supporting every edition including white box and red box, etc., is impossible, but thinking harder on it, I three-branched approach might work:
1. doing a revised/cleaned up 2e (think of it as 2.5e if you like)
2. doing an improved 4e (call it 4.5e)
and
3. a brand new edition (which would probably look very different from the recent playtest, as it would now no longer have to be a "unity edition")
(I'm not trying to exclude the 3e crowd, but Pathfinder has already filled the "revised 3.5e" model rather nicely).

And at the same time, they should make available PDF versions of past products for all editions (and perhaps reprint extremely popular books or supplements). A tall order? Perhaps. But Baskin Robbins wisely doesn't try to sell everyone on just one flavor at a time (bad analogy, true, but I've worked in publishing for years and believe me that a company can support multiple creative brands with a frighteningly small staff). It is doable. And at the end of the day, all that $$ coming in from 1, 2, and 3 can all be placed collectively in the "D&D" box and shown to Hasbro.

Dungeonosophy · Aug 9, 2012

Content Provider plus D&D Next

Mike Evans, that list of Product Suggestions for a Content-Provider Publishing Model is genius. The one thing I'd add is this: release D&DNext and all the TSR/Wotc content. That way, even the people who are looking forward to D&D5e won't be fragmented off.

Dungeonosophy · Aug 9, 2012

The Petition said:
Convert modules and campaign settings originally published under one edition, and publish them under all other editions.

Yes. Convert every campaign setting and adventure into every rules iteration.

One thing to watch out for is that the world fluff was actually depicted differently in different editions. For example, in the BECMI depiction of Mystara, it has its own unique cosmology, but in the 2e depiction of Mystara, those various planes are divvied up among the Great Wheel.

There is a canonical explanation for this in (D&D Brand Manager) Bruce Heard's Dragon magazine article "Up, Away, and Beyond". That article implies that that the various campaign settings are slightly, but significantly different in the various "game universes" (also called "Realities"). And that deity-level characters are actually aware of the existence of different "game universes".

The "Reality" concept is laid out here.