Comtemplating the Mearls articles - thinking out loud or 5E Design Ruminations?

[Mark CMG]

4 years really isn't all that quick of an edition turnover, except by 1e-2e AD&D->D&D3e standards, it's a little faster than 3.5e-4e, but a little slower than 3e-3.5e (and given than there were 3.5 replacements/equivalents for almost all 3.0 products, I think despite the name we have to consider 3.5 a real edition, not a half-edition; given the huge number of changes, even if individually minor, 3e->3.5e was almost as big of a change as 1e->2e); a lot of other RPGs release new editions much more frequently. If they go five years (announcing 5e next year and begin large-scale external play testing then, releasing it in 2013), then that's pretty normal for WotC D&D or just about any other RPG.

Are 3.0 and 3.5 separate editions and 4E and Essentials separate editions - or - was 3.5 a 3.0 clean up and Essentials a 4E cleanup? Either way, it's a marked acceleration. I'm not sure looking on 3.5 as a distinct edition from 3.0 then looking at Essentials as merely a 4E cleanup really tracks. In any event, 3.0 was released in August(?) 2000, 3.5 in June 2004, 4E in June 2008 and Essentials in November 2010.


When a product fails you can blame the product or the marketing. IF WotC believes that 4E has been a failure (a big IF since I am not convinced WotC believes it), then these articles are the early marketing push for 5E and the the main designer of 4E is apparently in charge of 5E. IF 4E was a failure in their eyes (same caveat as above) and the problem was both the product and the marketing (or the product and not the marketing), and IF this is the early marketing of a 5E, then it doesn't bode well for the apparent choices being made at this stage.

 

[nedjer]

Seen the feature list that's being unrolled out for 5e before. 10.1" Tegra 2+, x4 core Android with a peachy screen is next summer's buy for likely to be well-pleased DDi subscribers Pathfinder can sell all the trees it likes; the future real estate's in digital - and html circumvents all the difficulties that caused grief when they tried to code their own proprietary software.

Made a mistake with a tree and it's Humpty Dumpty time. Make a mistake with Wordpress DDi and it's changed before Mr Mike's back from a streamlined business lunch.

 

[nedjer]

I'm a double post donkey

 

[El Mahdi]

I have a question: if 4E were a big enough "failure" to require 5E so soon, why would WotC keep the same guy in charge of D&D?

Needing 5E so soon (which historically really isn't all that soon), doesn't necessarily mean that 4E was a failure. There could be lot's of reasons accelerating the need for a new edition that have little or nothing to do with 4E's success or failure. Personally, I feel that the changing nature of the market, and the immense amount of older material in existence providing material for campaigns/games, means that a company likely burns through all of their possible supplement and expansion ideas that much faster. Though I'm just guessing also.

Despite not preferring 4E though, I do not believe 4E has been a failure. No game or edition works exactly to expectations, but I do believe 4E has been successful.

 

[nedjer]

Mike Mearls is a lot sharper than he's often given credit for in here. It's no accident one of his top spies pops up in a new 5e thread within an hour. Paizo probably have to use spies just to keep track of his spies

 

[DaveMage]

I have a question: if 4E were a big enough "failure" to require 5E so soon, why would WotC keep the same guy in charge of D&D?

The guy who was in charge of 4E - Bill Slavicek - is no longer there.

 

[darjr]

The guy who was in charge of 4E - Bill Slavicek - is no longer there.

And Rob Heinsoo was the lead designer

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtd1qAwGVeU]‪D&D 4th Edition: Insights from the Lead Designer‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mark CMG]

And Rob Heinsoo was the lead designer

Yup. Administrative titles aside, I will however contend that based on what I read prior to the release of 4E, compared to what 4E became on publication and further on through Essentials, perhaps strengthened by the position he nows holds, that Mike Mearls has been the main designer for 4E.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why does it have to be one or the other? If I were in Mearls shoes, I'd be exploring design for a new edition and doing some thinking out loud--and probably a couple of other related things too, that from the outside would all fit into any of those buckets.

As far as what they need to do with a new editon, I'll add to the list:

1. Recognize that this is the internet age. This means, among many other things, that some people are going to be actively working to drag any new edition down. Won't matter if you do the best thing since sliced bread, someone will have motivations to tear it down. Your marketing team better be ready to accept this, and plan accordingly.

2. The best time to release a new edtion from a strictly business perspective will be right after the economy turns around. When people have been minding their budget carefully for several years, that first big discretionary income after the debts get under control is looking for a target.

Since I doubt anyone inside WotC is an expert on guessing on the turn around, a smart thing to do might be to quietly develop and playtest soon, with a small team, but not finalize and spend the big bucks until the economy improves. You want to launch after the recovery is rocking, but not start a two year development effort right as it is taking off.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

Mike Mearls is a lot sharper than he's often given credit for in here. It's no accident one of his top spies pops up in a new 5e thread within an hour. Paizo probably have to use spies just to keep track of his spies

We are everywhere