D&D (2024) Speculation Welcome: What's Next for D&D?

[TheSword]

I've seen more heart and soul in a staple-bound zine than in a $100 boxed set.
When stuff isn't good, we should be able to point out the faults of those products.
So, to come around to answering the question: Yes, it's me. I'm not pleased with middling content.

Finding giants or dragons boring; not liking the cardboard to paper ratio; your players being unable to handle anything other than combat; or being unable to handle complexity, not liking adventures that are 12 or 13 pages long (but thinking adventures that are 14 or 15 pages long are brilliant). All the while taking other peoples reviews removing the many positive points and concentrating on the bad is not objectively pointing out the faults. They’re actually reflections of your groups biases and not objective at all. Crikey you freely admit to not having read most of the books on the list!

Your casual dismissal of the last 3 years of products is disrespectful to the many writers, editors and artists old and new that did put blood sweat and tears into those stories. They’re people too, for many of getting to work on official DnD is a dream. You talk a good game about doing the right thing and morality but you’re awfully selective over who you seem to care about. You don’t seem to appreciate that the people you’re slating as passionless drones are the 3pp writers of the next decade. Just as the current 3pp we’re working on earlier editions the decades before. The ironic thing is that in general the 3pp you say are amazing are for the most part very respectful, supportive and admiring of the current crop of writers.

WotC products are terrible because Dragons are Boring? Give me a break.

 

[Retreater]

@TheSword and @Clint_L (and everyone else who has responded to my negativity), I'll try to take your criticisms of my views to heart. Even if I don't like the products, I'll try to refrain from vitriol on here. That isn't making a fun environment for us to discuss this hobby.
Clearly enough people like the WotC style to suggest I'm an outlier. However, instead of continuing to double down on what I don't like, I should do better about promoting what I do like.
I don't think I've been able to let go off my extreme dislike of Rime of the Frostmaiden when I ran it around 3 years ago, and coupled with the news articles last year made me dislike WotC even more.
As I'm not currently running any 5e games, there's no reason for me to consider any current products. Perhaps if I do run it again, I can consider some of these books and research them from a less hostile perspective.
Thanks for your insight.

 

[Marc Radle]

A mistake made in the first published adventure of the game in 2014 is a mistake made in 2014. A reprint after 8 years of development in 2022 is a second (worse) mistake in 2022. (Honestly, that adventure was so bad that I've avoided purchasing any other adventures from Kobold Press [though I think I've gotten a few of them in a PDF bundle - and so far, my feelings have been justified].)

For what it’s worth, those were produced while the new rules were still being finalized and everything, including the story and adventure mechanics, were heavily controlled by WotC …

 

[Retreater]

For what it’s worth, those were produced while the new rules were still being finalized and everything, including the story and adventure mechanics, were heavily controlled by WotC …

I hope to see the direction the design goes with a finalized Tales of the Valiant, when Kobold Press has even more freedom to put their stamp on things.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Not liking a text is subjective. I don't have a problem with that. I have a big problem with projecting from your own taste into assuming you know what someone else is thinking or feeling. Setting aside your frequent hyperbolic statements, you have repeatedly accused various creators of lacking passion, etc., when your only evidence is how you feel.

Criticizing the product is fine. Criticizing the creators for how you assume they feel or think is not, IMO.

If we're talking credentials, I teach IB language and literature and creative writing, with an MA in literature/cultural studies. I have more than four decades in TTRPGs. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Some WotC products are excellent. Some are not great. Few recent ones have been terrible. IMO. And the production quality is always very good. I have no idea how the designers were thinking or feeling while working on these products, so I'm not going to comment except for to note that whenever I see them speaking about or playing these games, they come across as both professional and passionate about what they do.

I do like when my own sentiments line up with the thoughts of a pro.

Points at a butterfly... "Is this... confirmation bias?"

 

[Parmandur]

Points at a butterfly... "Is this... confirmation bias?"

Depends on whether you want to be or not.

 

[Mercurius]

What's next for D&D is very simply whatever WotC thinks will earn the most profit. I don't know what that is, but I think it really comes down to that and only that, with any sense of "games by gamers for gamers" only ever being within the parameters of "what we think will maximize profits." Meaning, economics first and foremost, creativity and passion not simply secondary, but only ever within the context of the first. It is a subtle but crucial difference. In the big business model that WotC seems to be following, starting from the premise of "What we think will sell" and then forming a kind of limited template to work within--but the latter element, the "games we want to make and play," doesn't seem to every figure into their decision-making process except within the parameters of the fromer ("what we think will maximize profits"). The older/smaller approach is more like taking two separate things--"what we think will sell" and "what we want to make and play"--and trying to bring them together. In some cases, starting with the latter and then trying to figure out how sell it.

I don't say this with malice, more just realism (with a tinge of resignation). In other words, I'm not castigating WotC for being a corporation and doing what corporations do, though I admit to the implication that I generally find this approach distasteful and try to support smaller ventures as much as I can.

This is where D&D has diverged from smaller press properties like Paizo and Kobold, or even D&D as late as early WotC era (into 3E, at least): The overwhelming weight of decision-making seems to be on the bottom line of potential profit, whereas the smaller and older "game companies run by gamers" always had that pleasing feeling that the direction was guided by a bunch of fellow gamers who, yes, wanted to make a buck, but also wanted to make products that they wanted to play. Now it seems that every decision is made based almost entirely on business, with a secondary element of trying to cater to the most popular social concerns.

So yes, I think something is being lost in the process. This is not to say that WotC doesn't make quality products, just that they don't quite have the "grassroots" feeling of small companies, or how D&D used to feel. Yes, it used to be a big shambling mess, but it felt like a soulful mess, and one made by fellow gamers. Now, not so much. Tis the way of things, I guess.

All that said, my point is that to get a sense of where D&D is going, we have to understand what WotC is thinking--that is, where they think the most money is to be made. If you can answer that, then you probably can accurately predict where D&D is going.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

What's next for D&D is very simply whatever WotC thinks will earn the most profit. I don't know what that is, but I think it really comes down to that and only that, with any sense of "games by gamers for gamers" only ever being within the parameters of "what we think will maximize profits." Meaning, economics first and foremost, creativity and passion not simply secondary, but only ever within the context of the first. It is a subtle but crucial difference. In the big business model that WotC seems to be following, starting from the premise of "What we think will sell" and then forming a kind of limited template to work within--but the latter element, the "games we want to make and play," doesn't seem to every figure into their decision-making process except within the parameters of the fromer ("what we think will maximize profits"). The older/smaller approach is more like taking two separate things--"what we think will sell" and "what we want to make and play"--and trying to bring them together. In some cases, starting with the latter and then trying to figure out how sell it.

I don't say this with malice, more just realism (with a tinge of resignation). In other words, I'm not castigating WotC for being a corporation and doing what corporations do, though I admit to the implication that I generally find this approach distasteful and try to support smaller ventures as much as I can.

This is where D&D has diverged from smaller press properties like Paizo and Kobold, or even D&D as late as early WotC era (into 3E, at least): The overwhelming weight of decision-making seems to be on the bottom line of potential profit, whereas the smaller and older "game companies run by gamers" always had that pleasing feeling that the direction was guided by a bunch of fellow gamers who, yes, wanted to make a buck, but also wanted to make products that they wanted to play. Now it seems that every decision is made based almost entirely on business, with a secondary element of trying to cater to the most popular social concerns.

So yes, I think something is being lost in the process. This is not to say that WotC doesn't make quality products, just that they don't quite have the "grassroots" feeling of small companies, or how D&D used to feel. Yes, it used to be a big shambling mess, but it felt like a soulful mess, and one made by fellow gamers. Now, not so much. Tis the way of things, I guess.

All that said, my point is that to get a sense of where D&D is going, we have to understand what WotC is thinking--that is, where they think the most money is to be made. If you can answer that, then you probably can accurately predict where D&D is going.

I think there are two masters, but the control over the decisions isn't as you described.

The Management of D&D wants to make money, and monetary success is one of their primary motivators, but they are not the brains behind what is designed and created. They just have to be convinced to approve the ideas that the Designers dream up, and they have to manage the tasks and teams to physically manufacture and market the products.

The Designers of D&D are the fans who want to make something they are proud of. They are the ones pitching the ideas they think the public will want to buy, and they are the ones that have to convince the Management that they can deliver that experience with passion, for profit.

 

[Queer Venger]

I guess it's like saying all pizza is pizza? Regardless of the brand, style, toppings, etc.
So a Little Caesars' Hot n' Ready Pepperoni is a pizza the same as a Lou Malnati Chicago deep dish? Or a Totinos Party Pizza?

yep, all pizza; but we do get to pick the toppings ;-)

 

[Queer Venger]

Well, he has helped develop Flee Mortals, Where Evil Lurks, Strongholds and Followers, Kingdoms and Warfare. There are adventures in those, and Where Evil Lurks is all adventures/lairs.
Perkins and Crawford are basically just figureheads at this point, right?

not exactly the same thing as writing a full adventure module. He's a great designer of rules, not stories