D&D 5E 5e needs to push its IP instead of churning out splatbooks.

[Ratskinner]

The problem is that D&D does generic fantasy pretty badly. It does 'D&D style fantasy' (which at this point I think qualifies as it's own genre) to the exclusion of all else - and a lot of those things get in the way of generic fantasy.
Unlike some people, I think that's a pretty good thing. In some respects I agree with the OP, regardless of their intentions, in that I think emphasizing the unique D&Disms/IP (i.e. illithids, the Gith etc etc) is the best way forward for D&D.
And please, if there's to be a default setting for the next edition, make it something NEW already. The last new thing D&D did, setting-wise was Eberron and that was in what, 2004? EIGHT years ago?

Personally, I'm hoping that 5e with all its knobs and buttons will be able to do a broader swath of "generic fantasy" than its predecessors. When it comes to published settings...I'm starting to feel like Magic should be the model. Crank out a new setting with adventures each and every year. If one is crazy popular, revisit it in 5 years.

 

[Chaotic_Goth1431]

I think emphasizing the unique D&Disms/IP (i.e. illithids, the Gith etc etc) is the best way forward for D&D.

+1,000 XP

That whole giths vs illithid vs githyanki vs githzerai madness was what drew me into D&D after a very long hiatus.

 

[El Mahdi]

A complete aside from the OP, but I find this so interesting...so, with my apologies:

"Drowbane: WotC never owned L5R...?" Err nvm, guess they did own the rights to the setting. I thought the 3.0 OA had been a cooperative effort between AEG and WotC. Silly me.

You were partly right. You were mistaken about WotC not owning L5R, but they did work cooperatively with AEG.

The Five Rings Publishing Group (FRPG) bought and owned the rights to L5R's IP. FRPG was made up of people from both AEG and Isomedia, and found investors willing to back them, giving them the money for real promotion and publication. A partnership between AEG and Isomedia was responsible for the original development of the L5R card game.

AEG subsequently licensed the rights from FRPG for the L5R Roleplaying Game (probably fairly cheaply as it was all among friends). FRPG was subsequently bought by WotC, giving them ownership of L5R, though AEG's license remained in effect.

WotC then used the IP of L5R to print the 3E version of Oriental Adventures (set in Rokugan rather than Kara Tur), as well as produce the card game, while AEG continued to print the L5R Roleplaying Game...although as a D20 system version now.

WotC later put L5R up for sale, and AEG was able to purchase it...bringing it back home (and going back to their own system).

Kind of fitting, Legend of the Five Rings ended up taking a circuitous route, a ring of five stages if you will, leading right back to where it came from...

 

[Raith5]

The whole entire point of D&D Next is NOT to exclude ideas. "Bland" fantasy has just as much value as magitek or steam fantasy. And D&D needs to lure back old, lapsed players just as much as it needs to win over new players.

Agree but the tension here is between invoking the history of the D&D system and a variety of D&D game worlds. DDN seems to want Melf's acid arrow and Dark Sun without explaining the disjuncture between the two!

 

[delericho]

I agree that WotC should indeed attempt to build up their IP. I disagree, however, that the way to do this is through settings. The truth is that the vast majority of groups don't use any published setting, and the majority of those who do only ever use one. So, supporting multiple settings is almost inevitably doomed to failure - all that money spent for what will be marginal sales.

IMO, the place for pushing the IP is in adventures, and potentially in the Monster Manuals. Because while it's true that lots of groups don't use published adventures, those who do don't limit themselves to just one.

I'm inclined to think that a couple of really well-done Adventure Paths could work wonders for the IP associated with D&D, certainly more than just rehashing "Giants", "Drow", "Ravenloft" and "Slavers" again.

Of course, crafting a really well-done Adventure Path is much easier said than done...

 

[delericho]

Of course, to do this, WotC need to hire competent writers who can produce interesting material. Faerun? Greyhawk? Terrible generic fantasy crap filled with DM wank about high-level wizzyrds. Put some effort into the non-mechanical stuff.

The problem is that that generic crap sells. And, in fact, it's inevitable that the generic will sell better than any specific non-generic flavour.

See, it's like vanilla ice cream. Very few people will list it as their favourite flavour, and yet it is by far the best-selling variety. Why? Well, when people get together, you'll get people who prefer Mint Choc Chip, people who prefer Rocky Road, and so on... but the people who like MCC may well loathe RR, and vice versa. Gradually, once you knock out the various 'favourites', you have to find a compromise candidate... and vanilla provides that.

(The other advantage of generic is that it allows each individual user to add their own flavour on top. Want chocolate? You can add a sauce. Want cherries on top? No problem...)

So, yeah, if I were WotC, and assuming my goal were "make money", I would push hard for the Core Rules to be as system-neutral as possible (certainly with no baked-in setting), and then I would probably provide print support for only one published setting: Forgotten Realms. (And, as in 3e days, I would pack the FR books with exclusive crunch that was also suitable for generic games and I would charge a premium for the setting-specific books.)

 

[Bluenose]

Of course, crafting a really well-done Adventure Path is much easier said than done...

I'm not sure it is, really, considering how many times it's been done excellently. Admittedly, mostly not in D&D.

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure it is, really, considering how many times it's been done excellently. Admittedly, mostly not in D&D.

Well, given how easy it is to say...

Seriously, I think a large part of Paizo's success with the format was that they had a huge amount of experience doing standalone adventures first (and, indeed, doing several standalone adventures regularly, every month). Even so, it's obvious that they've learned a lot about the process as they've gone on - "Shackled City" now looks really quite primitive next to something like "Kingmaker".

Of course, that doesn't explain the success of things like "War of the Burning Sky".

So, I think part of the reason that WotC went wrong when they attempted it with 4e was that they just didn't have that sort of expertise. In fact, in all the years that they've owned D&D, WotC have done relatively few adventures at all, and only a handful (in print) that are actually good - mostly, they range from shockingly poor to mediocre. And of course, if you can't do a consistently good adventure, doing a good Adventure Path is that much more challenging again...

(Again, if I were in charge over at WotC, I wouldn't even be considering an AP at this point. I would be looking to rehabilitate our reputation for adventures first - produce a handful of really solid in-print standalone adventures, while also getting eDungeon 'back' to doing 3 adventures per month, every month without fail. (The latter is necessary, IMO, to enforce the discipline required for an AP.) Once you've done that for a while, then it's time to consider some slightly longer series - trilogies or mini-series of adventures. And only then, when you've got the reputation, the staff, and the experience, only then do you go for a full-blown AP.)

(Either that, or I'd kidnap the Paizo team... )

 

[Zireael]

I think they should publish standalone adventures emphasizing what a previous poster called D&D-isms. And D&Disms other than the drow.

I don't care what setting they set them in, it doesn't have to be detailed, but the adventures themselves should be good.

EDIT: About splatbooks - a big no. Stick to a single book per setting and update it via the webpage.

 

[Umbran]

(The other advantage of generic is that it allows each individual user to add their own flavour on top. Want chocolate? You can add a sauce. Want cherries on top? No problem...)

This is an important point. Vanilla is the best selling flavor because it is what you generally use to make ice cream sundaes.