The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Jeffrey]

It's an interesting series of articles and the input here from many has been insightful.

However, in order to stem any misgivings anyone may have about the future of D&D, specifically 5th edition, I'd like to make the following announcement:

In anticipation of my imminent hiring as President and CEO of WOTC in 2019 (@ eight years from now) I would like to state that design work has begun on D&D 6th edition and I'll take this opportunity to assure all of you here that already many of the faults inherent in the 5th edition rules have been corrected and, to be honest, you were not having fun playing that way anyway.

And yes. If you ask, I will hire some of you.

But my name is the only one that goes on the cover.

 

[Hussar]

/snip I'm fairly confident that D&D 4E skews younger than any version since 1E was released, that is to say younger than 2E and younger than 3.XE.

/snip.

Is there any actual evidence of this? Any at all? I mean, between the two Paizo Dragon questionnaire's, they pegged their readership at about 22 years old (actually, the second questionnaire, after the release of 3.5, had the average age drop from the first).

I mean, when WOTC and Ryan Dancey did their first market research, 65% of those they interviewed were under the age of 25

Do we really think that 4e's demographic is younger than that? What evidence is there of that? Just how young do you think the 4e demographic is? Teen? Pre-teen?

 

[Olorin]

The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future

 

[Plane Sailing]

Is there any actual evidence of this? Any at all? I mean, between the two Paizo Dragon questionnaire's, they pegged their readership at about 22 years old (actually, the second questionnaire, after the release of 3.5, had the average age drop from the first).

I mean, when WOTC and Ryan Dancey did their first market research, 65% of those they interviewed were under the age of 25

Of course, many of those in their original market research are now in the 30's or older, and we don't know what proportion stayed, jumped ship, came on board, introduced their children etc.

 

[DaveMage]

Interesting read with the "future" article.

If WotC makes a 5th edition, it should build on the 4E experience, but I would imagine - based on Mearls' comments - that it will have a basic core to it that is reminiscent of 1E (with 4E's tactical strengths) and build on that.

Those playing Pathfinder (that were happy with 3.5) are pretty happy with Pathfinder (not to mention happy with Paizo) so going back to D&D/WotC seems unlikely at best.

Paizo fans like Paizo/Pathfinder because of the way Paizo treats them. WotC, being the corporate entity that it is, is not capable of responding to its fans in the same way, and thus, it will likely be impossible for them to ever generate that kind of sustained goodwill again. (Although releasing PDFs of the old editions would be a very good start.)

 

[3catcircus]

The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future

I'm intrigued by the future article - Mearls definitely is on the same page as me when it comes to handing back the reigns to the DM so it'll be interesting to see whether or not there are specific rules differences between PCs and NPCs in 5e or if the entire flavor of the game will revert back to OD&D or 1e.

 

[bhandelman]

The fact of the matter is that 4E is very much a ruleset that focuses far more on tabletop miniatures combat than any other edition ever has, and this is coming from someone who has played them all with multiple groups, in home games and at gamedays and at conventions for the last four decades.

Then you must not have read the rules for the earliest edition, which suggested you use Chainmail to act out combat, or you have the same memory problem a lot of people here do.

4e is different than previous editions, as was 3e. I remember reading all the arguments back in 2000 about how 3e was just emulating Diablo, was too combat focused, etc etc etc. How many times did you see "The best RPG session I ever played in we never threw a single die" statement pop out? Remember the hate the Sorcerer class got? Or that Half-Orcs were now a default race?

I know this is the internet, and we like to forget anything before the recent past, but almost every argument I see thrown against 4e I saw 12 years ago. Thanks to Google Groups, I can show you posts from August of 2000 on rec.games.frp.dnd that go on and on about all the same things. The only difference now is because of the OGL, 4e has to compete with a previous system that is still supported. The closest thing to Pathfinder back then was Hackmaster, which was mostly a parody product to begin with, so you didn't have the same level of problem competing with a previous edition.

I understand people that don't prefer 4e. It is different in a lot of ways, and when you get invested in a game you are perfectly happy with you don't want to change it, but please stop making statements like "4e isn't DnD". 4e isn't how YOU like to play DnD, and that's fine, but there are lots of people who do like it. Making snide remarks about those fans doesn't make things any better and just helps further divide things. If I can play a game of 4e at my local hobby store at a table next to a group of Pathfinder players who are next to a table of WHFRP while someone else may be playing Dragon Age and no one is fighting or arguing or bragging how much better their system is, then I don't understand why people on these message boards can't do the same.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The "Future" article is up - The Escapist : The State of Dungeons & Dragons: Future

And there is the voice of WotC.

I think Mearls has a difficult, perhaps an impossible, job in front of him, trying to unite the gamers with 4e. I certainly have no interest in ever running, or even playing, the game. For me, they focused on the wrong things.

If WotC really isn't working on 5e... then I think that the schism will remain, and 4e and Pathfinder will continue to melee for the top spot.

I hope that WotC does try to fix some of the blunders made in regards to 4e's marketing, in particular a good, solid, starter set to introduce new players to the hobby. We need as many gateway drugs games as possible - Pathfinder Beginner's Box helps, and if WotC would produce a like product then everyone wins. Don't just make a marketing toy, make it worth keeping.

But my hopes, at this point, are low. I think that any real attempt to close the divide will be resisted both by upper management and by some of the more vocal fans on the two sides of the Edition War.

I really need to bring my blood sugar up, I am just way too depressed right now, low sleep and a last minute change to my work schedule are not helping.

At least I have a game tonight.

The Auld Grump, pity party! Pity party! Wah, wah, wah! Sorry 'bout that.

I should focus on the fact that there are two games, that both sides of the schism have something to play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Future article confirms my suspicions that the author really does want to shill his own product.

BUT, it's also contains some interesting tidbits. It sounds more and more that 5e might be a "stripped down D&D," with modules to add stuff on top of it.

 

[Lum The Mad]

Magic has seen a boost in popularity from the success of the Xbox Live game Duels of the Planeswalkers. A large percentage of players will get hooked on the digital game and then be inclined to purchase a booster deck of cards - or twenty. "One of the big questions facing the medium now is what is the Duels of the Planeswalkers for D&D?" said Mearls.

I think this is crucial!
Baldur's Gate [1998] was my gateway drug. (Along with Planescape: Torment [1999] and Icewind Dale [2000])

And I firmly believe that without these three games the 3e wouldn't have been such a success.

D&D needs a new video game series. Preferebly one that gets a 90%+ rating from reviewers.