D&D General IF D&D were for sale ...

[Micah Sweet]

Nobody said, "Don't talk about". After all, talking about the thing revealed that there may be values we as consumers cannot see!

I'm saying that if you want to honestly consider the thing, in the end you have to carve out spaces around what you don't know. Otherwise, you end up telling yourself the story you want to hear, whatever that is.

Fair enough, but we are consumers. Things that aren't positives from that perspective are going to be an issue for us.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If we shift the question to "What we do if we bought D&D", I suppose my answer would be this: I am smart enough to know I'm not smart enough to run it and have it do the game justice. I'm an old fart, and while I would actively support previous editions, I know that the next generation of gamers deserves to have the game built by the next generation of gamers. I think that's the best way to keep the game going strong. Adapt and change as each generation changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If we shift the question to "What we do if we bought D&D", I suppose my answer would be this: I am smart enough to know I'm not smart enough to run it and have it do the game justice. I'm an old fart, and while I would actively support previous editions, I know that the next generation of gamers deserves to have the game built by the next generation of gamers. I think that's the best way to keep the game going strong. Adapt and change as each generation changes.

See, I think you should make a new game for new gamers. Insisting on twisting D&D continuously to fit the gamer of the moment is helpful only for the high-level owners of the brand.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Therein lies the problem. Put 10 gamers in a room and ask them what "not messing it up" looks like and you'll get a rotating assortment of answers most of which will come back to 4e was terrible, get your woke out of my game, that's too expensive and hawaiian pizza is an abomination.

A gamer isn't going to have a spare 2 billion on hand to buy a passion project; a hedge fund manager might.

I meant more like "Buys a lot of stuff they dont need like boats and cars and houses in LA" etc etc etc

 

[Sacrosanct]

See, I think you should make a new game for new gamers. Insisting on twisting D&D continuously to fit the gamer of the moment is helpful only for the high-level owners of the brand.

That's fair. But I look at it like any other product. For example, D&D is the Corvette of the RPG world. Each generation brings something new and different to the current market. I don't think it would have been a good idea to retire the Corvette after 1959, or we never would have gotten the 67 Stingray.

 

[Minigiant]

Which of these are good things people should want, and which are bad reasons for not liking objectively good things? And how is any of this not personal preference based on a (presumed) fondness for 4e on your part?

People complained about 4e wizards having at wills, encounter, and daily spells because they didn't like the look of fighters, rogues, wizards, and clerics all having the same structure.

Fast forward to 5e, players are complaining about classes not having equal incentives to rest.

All because of looks. Not narrative purpose. Not gamist design. Looks.

That's why I can't trust anyone solely with the IP.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

D&D is not only the rules. For Hasbro D&D is mainly the characters, the settings, the lore or background. Other companies can publish their own retroclone, and this is right, but D&D is Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer... the original monster and PC species.. You can find easily a lot of fantasy manganimes or isekais, but those aren't true D&D.

 

[Umbran]

I am not a D&D-only kind of guy - I play and run lots of other games. So, I don't need D&D to be my personal cup of tea at any given moment. My considerations, then, are not about meeting my personal desires of rules, setting, or adventure content.

When I consider the RPG hobby as a whole, I think the existence of a "Big Fish" in the market is a natural and beneficial element. I am not personally invested in that Big Fish being D&D, but I don't mind that D&D is in that role. I think it would be bad for the hobby as a whole for D&D to suddenly collapse - if there's to be a new Big Fish, we players would be better off if that transition is based on us players migrating to something we like better over some business failure on the part of the owner of the IP leading to the D&D brand suddenly leaving the market.

So, as I consider such a transition, maintaining the popularity and business success is a major concern - I don't care if shareholders are profiting via rising stocks, but it matters if loads of people are buying and playing the game.

We've been told that there's a limit on the speed with which the Anniversary books can come out, not on the side of design and creativity, but in printing - the print runs expected to meet desire overwhelm printing capacity!

That means D&D ought to be bought by someone who has the capability of managing extremely large projects successfully.

Baldur's Gate 3 is a massive hit. While it doesn't seem to have been a major financial success, I found Honor Among Thieves to be highly entertaining, and I'm glad it got made, and would like to see future attempts.

That means D&D ought to be bought by someone who can manage licensing deals aiming at revenue on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Virtual tabletop play has been a boon for the hobby, and isn't going away. Digital delivery of game content is a huge vale to players. The third party market is a similar value, and boondoggles like last year's OGL fiasco do the game harm.

That means that D&D ought to be bought by someone who is tech-savvy, understands the broader marketplace that supports D&D, is willing to stay with some form of open license, and willing to slowly update licensing and/or technical capabilities to support digital and 3rd party realities.

D&D seems to have benefitted from the massive playtest efforts in recent core rules releases.

That means that D&D ought to be bought by someone open to design partly driven by community opinion, and community feedback in general.

I don't know of any current players in the space who meet these requirements.

 

[Steampunkette]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Lol they're not going to do anything new with previous editions. Changing one isn't gonna happen.
. At best reprints with new covers like 10 years ago maybe add them to CC.

The thread literally has no relation whatsoever to what wotc is or isn’t likely to do.

Y'all got a Kickstarter for this? I joke but that is quite attractive. Hurry up and make the proper 4E SRD like you "promised" last January, WotC! I do think 4E is a game which can tolerate a lot more than 12 classes in the long run but as basis for the SRD that would make sense.

Yeah tbh I’d love to see it.
And I love a lot of the 4e classes that wouldn’t be in the 4e Revised PHB, like the Avenger. But IMO you don’t want a 600 page PHB. As for the SRD, I’d be down to put every class in it. Why not? Just organize it so that the core 12 or so are in the main section, and then there is a secondary “uncommon classes” section after that.

Oh, I’d also have the offline character builder and encounter/monster builder updated and rereleased with a toggle for classic 4e or Revised 4e.

And DDB would be expanded dramatically to encompass every edition, classic and revised, and try to partner with or buy demiplane to support other games and make our platform the hub of the TTRPG community, not just D&D.
Users could publish via the platform, with each game hub having its own market that is all part of the same service “under the hood” like DTRPG and DMsGuild, and we would eventually want to host basically a full marketplace for everything TTRPG, complete with publishing tools, help creators find editors and graphic designers, help people put together development teams, print physical copy, maybe even buy HeroForge and integrate the VTT tech with HeroForge.

Like the roadmap would be ambitious, and I wouldn’t give a damn about profit for the first few years, and aim to break even after paying for labor and all that in later years. Executive staff would be paid about 50% more than the median employee, profit sharing (once there is profit) would be universal, and we would quickly become an employee owned company.

Because I really believe that would lead to the brightest future for D&D and the TTRPG community.

Also 5e would still be seen as evergreen at least as a goal, with new “editions” in the sense of “the lord of the rings edition of monopoly” not in the sense of a new core game. So cyberpunk 5e, space fantasy 5e, etc.
And of course playable Gnolls, addition of the Assassin, Captain, and Swordmage, classes,

It is the spirit.

I don't trust anyone to not be greedy if they had the money to buy DnD.

Yes of course, there are no people in the world that aren’t secretly just greedy bastards.

Good lord.

Now I could get behind Sam Reich if he had the capital and never went public. Having shareholders (who aren't fans) is not a good thing for the game.

Agreed.