It is important to remember that part of the goal of 4E was to reach out and try to bring very large numbers of non-gamers into D&D. I'm not a big believer in HASBRO meddling. I don't think anyone at HASBRO mgmt thought for two seconds about the details of 4E rules. But I do think simplification and "lowering the bar" for entry play were absolute criteria. Just go back and look at the initial marketing, they played up these things over and over. And I'd agree they were noble goals in concept. I just think they were not based on realistic expectations. But 4E is the best game it could possibly be with those criteria because some of the best and most dedicated people were working on it.
* - stumbled in this case meaning in (a) making a game that offers what *I* am looking for and (b) making a game that held together and grew the fan base. Specific cases of finding 4E awesome are not challenged and I 100% agree it is awesome at certain, specific things.
I think where WotC stumbled is that they focused too much on the two birds in a bush and lost track of the bird in hand, which fractured and split into multiple birds, some of whom flew off...err, you know what I mean!
This is not to say that it is not possible to find new players and expand the game, but that it has to be done from a strong core, and WotC lost that - or at least they didn't make up for players lost with players found (afaik, of course).
Now the problem with a new edition is that it is a high risk, high reward thing. The point would be to get lapsed players back AND find new players, but without losing current 4E fans. In other words, what they wouldn't want to do is further dilute the community with lots of unhappy 4E holdouts. It is a weird thing, because in order for 5E to be a success it would have to either turn 4E into a "lost edition" that nobody plays or it would have to compatible enough with 4E to make all of the material still valid and usable, ala 1E and 2E.
I would guess that they would go for the latter approach, that they would try to play up compatibility with 4E through DDI. So when we talk about "5E" coming out in some sense we may see something more akin to a new print run of core rulebooks that manage to be both a new edition but also a revised version of 4E.
I dunno about Dannager but my gripe with 5e is coming threads is that the evidence (IMO and all that ) seems to sonsist of "something bad has happened at WOTC", "I don't like 4e" so 5e must be coming.
That is not at all what I'm saying. Actually, I find it irritating when people immediately polarize any such discussion into whether or not one likes or dislikes X-edition. I like and play 4E; I have problems with it and I would like to see a 5E that addresses those problems, but I do like the game - and more than Pathfinder, 3.5, 1E, or any other version of D&D.
Now even if 4e is a financial disaster for Wizards and DDI is bleeding money, why would 5e be a success.
Which is the mostly likely to generate a future revenue stream?
1) Shut D&D down for 20 years and reboot ala Transformers circa 2030.
I don't see htis happening.
2) Strip down the D&D inhouse staff to a minimum to run a bunch of freelancers and do maybe a setting or mini setting a year, some new mechaincs via DDI and a couple of boardgames a year. With a console or PC game very 3 years or so. Let it tick along for 10 years or so.
I don't see this ticking along for 10 years. We might see D&D run on idle for a few years with the focus being on DDI and very little meatspace products printed. Then, as the game gradually evolves through updates and new material largely published online, "5E" might be printed in 3-5 years.
3) Scrap all existing DDI structure and release a new pen and paper edition with no electronic support.
As much as some diehard grognards might want this, I don't see this happening.
4) Replace the existing electronic support with the tools needed for a new edition and an new pen and paper edition alongside it.
This is inevitable, imo, and can go hand-in-hand with #2, although with a shorter timeline.
It would seem to me that 1 or 2 makes the most financial sense and that they are going for 2.
Again, I see some combination of 2 and 4, but on a much accelerated timeline. Remember, we live in the 21st century where information doubles every year or two now. 10 years is a
long time; it will pass quickly, but a lot can change. So I see the following scenario playing out:
2011-12: Further "fishing" from Mike Mearls; WotC prints little product, maybe one new item every couple months, plus board games and other non-D&D products. At some point 5E is announced, although perhaps not as "5E" but as "Advanced D&D" or the "40th Anniversary Edition," but everyone calls it 5E anyway.
2012-13: 5E elements are gradually introduced via DDI.
2014: 5E is printed in conjunction with the 40th anniversary.
2015: Realizing 5E is a massive success, Paizo introduces a line of 5E product and a new OGL is negotiated.
2015-20: A new Golden Age of D&D as the community is united under 5E.
2019-20: Rumors of 6E start emerging.
2021: 6E emerges as a fully virtual, immersive computer game run on solar energy.
2022: The world ends when it is realized that the Mayan Calendar was off by a decade and an asteroid impacts the earth, destroying it. Luckily the central computers that run 6E survive the impact and float off into space on a new asteroid named Gygaxia. As the game is run on solar energy, thousands of D&D players remain alive in a virtual D&D setting. Gygaxia begins a new orbit around the sun.
