4.33 Years in: What Now for 5E? (and have we reached "Peak Edition?")

[delericho]

If the 3/3.5 approach worked well for 3rd edition, then could a 5/5.5 approach add another 4.33 years without issue?

It was a bit of a surprise to me, but apparently the 3/3.5 approach didn't work well - the 3.5e books apparently sold about half as well as their 3e predecessors. And although the game did go on for another 5 years, it was 5 years of long, slow decline.

Basically, if they did a new version that was effectively a 5.5e (that is, the same foundation with a lot of changes in the periphery), they'd be better off calling it 6e than anything else.

 

[clearstream]

It was a bit of a surprise to me, but apparently the 3/3.5 approach didn't work well - the 3.5e books apparently sold about half as well as their 3e predecessors. And although the game did go on for another 5 years, it was 5 years of long, slow decline.

Basically, if they did a new version that was effectively a 5.5e (that is, the same foundation with a lot of changes in the periphery), they'd be better off calling it 6e than anything else.

The name isn't so important, for me. The important part is keeping what is hale, and renovating only what is rotten.

I suppose we also don't know the counterfactual. Would 3e with no update have continued to do even half the numbers? Could 4e even have been designed prior to Book of Nine Swords... in 2006?!

The community seems strongest when it coheres around a universally accepted D&D rule set.

 

[delericho]

The name isn't so important, for me. The important part is keeping what is hale, and renovating only what is rotten.

...

The community seems strongest when it coheres around a universally accepted D&D rule set.

That's true. It's also worth noting that a new edition inevitably splits the fanbase, even if it's to a mostly-compatible new version (1st -> 2nd, 3e -> 3.5e).

That being the case, I think I'd be inclined to argue that 6e shouldn't be a change of the order of 1st -> 2nd. If that's what they're considering, they'd probably be better off not producing the new edition and instead living with what they have (warts and all) for as long as they can possibly bear to do so.

That is, 6e should only come when they've reached the point that they feel the game needs a major overhaul. (So a 3.5e -> 4e level of change in, say, 2026, rather than a 1st -> 2nd in 2021, or something.)

Of course, that is rather complicated by the 50th anniversary in 2024, which would be a really good opportunity for a new edition, so...

 

[Eric V]

There are quite a few things that 5e could use improvement upon from a (long-time) gamer perspective, and from the point of view of game theory, mechanics, etc. Doesn't mean these things are completely broken or whatnot, just that they exist in the game for reasons other than pure game design.

Note: None of these issues seem to have affected its popularity. D&D is more popular than ever.

In the old days, with a much smaller market of long-time gamers, there would be good reason to re-vamp the game now and then. The audience is waaay beyond that now, though; just as board games made a resurgence a few years ago to a higher degree of popularity than before, D&D has done the same. And done so following the board game model.

There won't be a Catan 2e. Monopoly hasn't changed, nor has Risk...this is it. D&D (why even bother using the "5e" tag?) as it is now is how it will be. Some style variants? Sure (LotR Risk, for example). Slight changes (through errata like the slightly different versions of Fury of Dracula)? Sure.

But sweeping changes like 3e to 4e? 2e to 3e? Even 3e to 3.5? Nah. No money in it. Not now, and not for the conceivable future.

This is the downside to following a game that is designed primarily to be popular, as opposed to a game designed to the most creative ability of talented designers, unfortunately: the different priorities mean that certain things, game design elements, will not go through official change.

Hopefully, UA will move from "playtest ground" to "Showing off my game-design chops" to address this, in the grand scheme of the market, fairly niche desire.

 

[generic]

There are quite a few things that 5e could use improvement upon from a (long-time) gamer perspective, and from the point of view of game theory, mechanics, etc. Doesn't mean these things are completely broken or whatnot, just that they exist in the game for reasons other than pure game design.

Note: None of these issues seem to have affected its popularity. D&D is more popular than ever.

In the old days, with a much smaller market of long-time gamers, there would be good reason to re-vamp the game now and then. The audience is waaay beyond that now, though; just as board games made a resurgence a few years ago to a higher degree of popularity than before, D&D has done the same. And done so following the board game model.

There won't be a Catan 2e. Monopoly hasn't changed, nor has Risk...this is it. D&D (why even bother using the "5e" tag?) as it is now is how it will be. Some style variants? Sure (LotR Risk, for example). Slight changes (through errata like the slightly different versions of Fury of Dracula)? Sure.

But sweeping changes like 3e to 4e? 2e to 3e? Even 3e to 3.5? Nah. No money in it. Not now, and not for the conceivable future.

This is the downside to following a game that is designed primarily to be popular, as opposed to a game designed to the most creative ability of talented designers, unfortunately: the different priorities mean that certain things, game design elements, will not go through official change.

Hopefully, UA will move from "playtest ground" to "Showing off my game-design chops" to address this, in the grand scheme of the market, fairly niche desire.

Agreed. If a game is designed to appeal to the largest possible number of players, it is not going to be as expansive or mechanically diverse as other games.

 

[Jester David]

It should be noted there HAVE been different editions of a Catan:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/266837/review-changes-new-edition

 

[Parmandur]

It should be noted there HAVE been different editions of a Catan:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/266837/review-changes-new-edition

And Monopoly, and Risk. But these have been evolutionary in nature. The edition history of BD&D seems to be the best indicator of what we might eventually see for a 6E.

 

[Morrus]

I think it is important to keep in mind, that as far as sales numbers go, no other RPG matters. They're all just blips compared to D&D. None of them are big enough for WotC to notice, let alone push them to do anything.

At the moment in time, that's certainly true. But there have been times in the past when that wasn't true, and there will be times in the future when it's not true. Nothing remains the same forever!

 

[Azzy]

And Monopoly, and Risk. But these have been evolutionary in nature. The edition history of BD&D seems to be the best indicator of what we might eventually see for a 6E.

I hope you're correct. I don't want to see another rules upheavel again.

 

[Aldarc]

D&D (why even bother using the "5e" tag?) as it is now is how it will be. Some style variants? Sure (LotR Risk, for example). Slight changes (through errata like the slightly different versions of Fury of Dracula)? Sure.

But sweeping changes like 3e to 4e? 2e to 3e? Even 3e to 3.5? Nah. No money in it. Not now, and not for the conceivable future.

I personally find this difficult to believe. The idea that there will not be any major changes to D&D in the future just because it is presently riding high in popularity seems somewhat short-sighted. It's inevitable. Popularity and tastes of the game will change. Many of the edition changes in D&D often represent these changes of tastes and game design philosophies.

Personally, I know from my own track record in this hobby that I would and will lose prolonged interest in D&D without those rule upheavals. It undeniably kept my interest fresh and renewed my sense of experiencing the game anew. It's why I jumped from 3 to 3.5e. It's why I jumped from 3.5e to both Pathfinder and 4e. It's why I jumped from PF/4e to 5e. I don't think that I would likely come back if it's just "LotR D&D." I will need more than lipstick on a pig. In contrast, I can pick up Catan. I don't need an update. I can play it for a quick game one day. Put it back on my shelf. And then I will return to it later when enough people want to play it. D&D doesn't really work the same way for me. Sure, it will sit on my shelf, and I may play a few other TTRP games before returning back to it, but the sort of issues that I have when engaging the play experience of D&D is different than my expectations when I engage Catan for play purposes.