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

delericho · Jul 18, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
I think you do the edition war far too much credit. 4e has lasted longer than 3.5 did - and a lot longer than 3.0 did.

I think your dates may be off.

3.0e was released in 2000
3.5e was released in 2003
4e was released in 2008

So, 3.5e lasted 5 years, while 4e has lasted 4 so far. (And that's assuming you don't consider Essentials a substantive revision on a par with 3.5e.)

They just need more if they are ever to make that $50 million/year target.

I really hope they're no longer operating under that requirement. I don't see how they can possibly hope to achieve it - the DDI was the most likely route to that, but seems to have fallen short in 4e, and I don't see how 5e is going to do significantly better - not least since they haven't said anything about their intentions for DDI with 5e.

And I'm sure there will be a D20 retroclone of 4e using OGL-released material and reverse engineering. Same way the other retroclones work. It just needs something to coalesce the fanbase on. (On rpg.net I mostly jokingly suggested Paizo should make one to force WotC onto the back foot with 5e - and it would be a jackpot for any other game company).

I hope you're right. Unfortunately, my gut feeling is that if anyone tries it and makes any sort of a success of it, they'll have to be very careful about the legal stuff, of they'll face the Wrath of the Lawyers. Because a good 4e retroclone stands to be the second-biggest competitor to 5e (after Pathfinder), and while there's nothing WotC can do about Pathfinder, you can bet they would go after a 4e clone if they had any grounds.

the Jester · Jul 18, 2012

Neuroglyph said:
Last night, I posted a blog with a proposal to WotC to consider an alternative course than to publish yet another edition of D&D. I've even linked in a petition on Change.org, and I’m hoping to get some grassroots support from those in the D&D community who are not favoring D&D Next to sign on.

Please check out the blog here A Proposal & Petition:
Say YES to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS / Say NO THANKS to D&D NEXT

And if you like the proposal, please link it to your fellow gamers who might be interested in considering something other than D&D Next for the future of the game.

And remember: Supporting ALL D&D EDITIONS means supporting ALL D&D FANS!

No offense, but your petition betrays a lack of understanding that D&D, from WotC's perspective, is a business; that it must make money; that economy of scale is a huge piece of the puzzle; and that by keeping 4 (or however many) versions of the game in print and continuing to publish new material for them, they will need more staff and to expend more resources to publish material that will have a smaller potential customer base than if they keep working on only one version of the game.

It's a nonstarter IMHO, and I don't see the need to ask WotC to go down that path when smaller companies that can afford it are keeping the other editions fresh with retroclone material and Pathfinder, which are generally compatible with the edition that they emulate.

shamsael · Jul 18, 2012

Neuroglyph said:
Last night, I posted a blog with a proposal to WotC to consider an alternative course than to publish yet another edition of D&D. I've even linked in a petition on Change.org, and I’m hoping to get some grassroots support from those in the D&D community who are not favoring D&D Next to sign on.

Please check out the blog here A Proposal & Petition:
Say YES to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS / Say NO THANKS to D&D NEXT

And if you like the proposal, please link it to your fellow gamers who might be interested in considering something other than D&D Next for the future of the game.

And remember: Supporting ALL D&D EDITIONS means supporting ALL D&D FANS!

Support ALL D&D FANS by depriving 5e fans of 5e?

Go away.

Tony Vargas · Jul 18, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
4e has lasted longer than 3.5 did - and a lot longer than 3.0 did.

3e went 8 years, 4e has gone 4 and is basically dead at this point (no new material forthcoming), even if 5e isn't out yet. Dividing it into 3.0 and 3.5 gives you one game that went 3 and one 5. Dividing 4e at Essentials, that's two games at 2 years each.

No matter how you slice it, 4e has been killed prematurely, even compared to 3e.

And, if you count ongoing OGL 3pp support and Pathfinder, 3.x is immortal: it's gone 12 years and can keep going forever.

And I'm sure there will be a D20 retroclone of 4e using OGL-released material and reverse engineering.

The GSL makes cloning 4e on the level that Pathfinder cloned 3.5 impossible (well, illegal). And, while some sort of vague immitation using the OGL might stand the legal test, it's unlikely any 3pp would have the resources to carry through on the necessary legal defense to get there.

With nothing to 'rally around' the 4e fanbase will either feel forced into 5e or away from D&D altogether, there's not enough non-WotC 4e resources to make a go of it. That will, of course, be taken as final proof of the edition's failure.

Mallus · Jul 18, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
And the reason they're doing it is to re-capture the lost revenue that fans of past eds of D&D represent. They may also get plenty of longtime fans who'll buy anything with the logo, and those curious to see whether it's any good, at first, but they are very clearly going back and resurrecting bits of old editions in an appeal to nostalgia - and revenue a successful appeal to nostalgia might bring.

As someone whose group went from a 4e campaign, to an AD&D game --started on a lark and out of nostalgia-- let me offer my perspective.

There are plenty of great reasons to play older versions that have *nothing* to do with nostalgia. My group finds AD&D to be much, much faster in play, which is perfect for us, playing 2-3 hours on a Friday night, with periodic kid interruptions and general dinner party like socialization going on.

But there are also additional elements we wished AD&D had, and none of us --professional careers, families, etc.-- have the time or inclination to extensively house-rule anyone.

Ergo, 5e seems to meet a consumer need of ours.

Which isn't pure nostalgia, nor a sinister compulsion to hand WotC our money.

Framing 5e as nothing but a nostalgia-laden cash grab ignores the part of the D&D player base I happen belong to.

Please don't do that. It gives me a sad (actually, it doesn't).

Everything they do is about revenue.

Of course. So let's stop talking about revenue. That WotC wants it is a given.

]Which is why they shouldn't stop at re-prints, but put out new material for old eds, as well.

I don't see WotC doing it. Besides, it's unnecessary. The OSR's got it covered.

Meh. I see a lot of fans who are rabid about their favorite edition.

Fans like to argue, especially when given access to the 24-hour anonymous global bitchfest that is the Internet. Take it with a Gibraltar-sized icosahedron made entirely of salt...

rogueattorney · Jul 18, 2012

Since WotC took over the D&D brand, they have in rough chronological order:

1. Licensed Hackmaster, a mock tribute to AD&D;

2. Issued the Silver Anniversary collector's set, which reprinted the 1978 Basic rules, contained a number of O(A)D&D modules including a never before issued 1e module;

3. Released (via Paizo) the CD-Rom archives of Dragon magazine, containing the entire run The Strategic Review and the first 250 issues of The Dragon;

4. Licensed and then took in-house the release of a huge chunk of OOP materials for download;

5. Offered a number of OOP materials for free download on their website;

6. Issued the OGL, which effectively allowed for copyright clean versions of OOP D&D to be published by others;

7. Released very nice collector's editions of the 1e core books;

8. Announced (but have not yet released) collector's editions of the 3.5e core books.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Many or most of the above have been problematic in some regard. WotC has been far from systematic or consistent with regard to their OOP materials, maddeningly so. However, I don't think it can be claimed that they haven't made an effort. I feel that they understand that there's a market for the material and I think they feel that they have an obligation to the franchise to preserve its history. They just don't seem to have any idea at all as to how to go about doing it.

Hopefully, after 5e comes out, they can devote some resources to taking a serious look at their OOP intellectual property and come up with a means of sharing it with their customers that respectfully serves both the customers and the brand.

BobTheNob · Jul 18, 2012

Piping in late my issue with your position is...

Well, for a while now (decades really) I have been looking at D&D and I came to a number of core conclussions about it. Things I just didnt like. I look at all the editions and think "Nah, aspect A bugged me" and another edition and think "aspect B bugged me".

Now if I was looking at the list in its entirety, the funny thing is, alot of the things that I dislike have already been mentioned as part of the design goals of 5e. So my problem with the article is that (drum role) 5e sounds like the edition Im looking for, and what your actually saying is because others like previous editions, I shouldnt have 5e. (or at least, thats the impression I got).

So maybe WOTC shouldn't be saying 5e is the edition to unite all, but that doesnt exclude it from being a happy member of the edition community.

pogre · Jul 19, 2012

I'm very much looking forward to 5e. I understand the distress some 4e folks have at the direction of Next. I played WFRP for 11 years and went through 4 or 5 years with an unsupported game. It's possible, it's fun, but it is a little tougher.

From WOTC perspective I would wager their thought process is something like this for reunification:

Number of Paizo folks + Number of legacy D&D players is much greater than the number of 4e players. Therefore, the new game to reunify D&D players would lean towards those rulesets.

That's my W.A.G., but I do understand why some 4e players feel abandoned.

Neuroglyph · Jul 19, 2012

pogre said:
I'm very much looking forward to 5e. I understand the distress some 4e folks have at the direction of Next. I played WFRP for 11 years and went through 4 or 5 years with an unsupported game. It's possible, it's fun, but it is a little tougher.

From WOTC perspective I would wager their thought process is something like this for reunification:

Number of Paizo folks + Number of legacy D&D players is much greater than the number of 4e players. Therefore, the new game to reunify D&D players would lean towards those rulesets.

That's my W.A.G., but I do understand why some 4e players feel abandoned.

Well sadly, I think your formula (and WotC's) is flawed. Alienating all the 4E players who don't want to go retro gaming is the mirror image of the same model that left the 3.5 gamers disenfranchised when they didn't want a new fangled AEDU game system for D&D. And honestly, with the number of oddball 4E-isms and the overly simplified monsters that have found their way into the 5E core rules already, I think WotC is being overly hopeful about the number of Pathfinder and 3.5 fans they will pull over into D&D Next. I anticipate it's going to be less than 1 in 100.

On the other hand, converting old modules, sourcebooks, and campaign settings which never appeared in 3.5 over into the OGL rules set - which is perfectly compatible with Pathfinder - as well as new content developed down the line at WotC, means those products will be usable to 100% of the Paizo fan base. That's the beauty of the content-provider model. All players get to keep playing their favorite editions, and they get new content.

And to those who claim a POD content-provider model doesn't work, I really suggest that you should check out Paizo. Most of their catalog consists of supplemental material for a couple core rulebooks, like Golarian setting books, add-on character content, specialized bestiaries, and modules. They are making that model work for them, with a substantially smaller library, and still beating the pants off WotC for sales. And they aren't making constant excuses about ebooks because of fears of piracy, I might add.

Just imagine what WotC could do if they actually stepped outside their 1980s publishing model and put the massive D&D library of products out there for D&D gamers of every edition.

the Jester · Jul 19, 2012

Neuroglyph said:
And to those who claim a POD content-provider model doesn't work, I really suggest that you should check out Paizo.

Comparing how much money Paizo needs to make on a product to justify writing it to how much money WotC needs to make is like comparing the income of Suriname with that of the U.S.

The economic realities are simply very different. Paizo, despite being one of the big names in rpgs, is a small company. WotC is an arm of a huge corporation. Not at all the same. And translating all those books to a new system takes designer time and money, which is time and money not spent on the products that will make WotC more money and to support their own product line.