Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[El Mahdi]

Would a new edition make people happy?

In my opinion: No. It would likely make some people happy, it would likely bring some new converts from older editions, maybe some brand new players, but would almost assuredly turn others off and fracture the community even more.

IMO, a new edition will never unify or reunify the D&D community (if it was even a unified community in the first place).

The only thing that should matter as far as WotC is concerned, is unifying the community into wanting to purchase DDI subscriptions (as DDI is the future of D&D). The only way to do that is to have full and equal support for all editions on DDI - and bring back the damn pdf's!!!

For me, I'm mostly indifferent about a new edition. It would have to perfectly hit my sweet spot to make a significant impact on me, though I'm sure I might find some aspects of a new edition worthy of co-opting for my own games. But an ala-carte DDI that allows you to make your RPG system, that's virtually guaranteed to hit everyones sweet spot? Well that would be something...

 

[Pour]

As many have pointed out, the lines have been drawn, the existing RPG community is firmly split, and by virtue of the inherent design differences between each iteration of D&D the idea of a perfect edition seems almost delusional at this point.

Let the other editions stand on their own, as they clearly have been doing via the Old School Renaissance and Pathfinder. Someone pointed out that, out of the current pool of RPGers, D&D is no longer the go-to standard, and the amount of exciting gaming options have never been more diverse. That's okay.

The future of D&D is in breaking new ground and pushing new design philosophies. It's about remembering what's been done before, sure, respecting it, but not regurgitating it and certainly not in being shackled by it. It's in bringing in new players, appealing to new groups, new demographics, and yes, changing, new settings, new video games, no doubt eventually new cartoons and movies, new mechanics, and the disappearance of others.

4e was not the one, failed flirtation with this notion, it was one step in a continuous evolution. The old ways are done. Let them play out in their own communities, evolve with their new custodians, and allow D&D to take its own steps, with or without you.

It makes no sense to create something bare bones only to offer add-ons that emulate what we already have in other editions. The success and future of D&D is not in going backwards, cleaning up some of the older editions, and offering them all up again. It's not redesigning what's been done before just enough to warrant the number 5. It's not reconciling with the shunned, offended and frustrated.

 

[prosfilaes]

I also believe that the gap between D&D and other products such as Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS (just to name a few examples) is much smaller than it has been previously.

The gap between D&D and Pathfinder is small, but GURPS (just to name one example) hasn't been doing well at all.

 

[prosfilaes]

The future of D&D is in breaking new ground and pushing new design philosophies.

That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.

 

[Pour]

That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.

Not only do I think it wise, I think it essential, and I believe it's the route they've taken. They do have quite a backing, after all, with the most capital to devote to such ventures. 4e is more than an experiment, it is the evolution of (or reaction to, that's highly subjective) what came before it, and anything that comes after should be as well. I mean what is the alternative of change? Think of all that would have been missed if designers, at any point, stopped producing new and experimental material. We'd not have the rich history and assets of D&D the property- no Faerun, no Strahd, no Sorcerer Kings or Sigil, no THAC0 (somebody must like it... right?) or scaling AC or skills or saves or defenses or domains or powers! Divergent ideas, risks, pursuit of creative possibilities, the process should never be denied or shunned because (and this is the really wonderful thing) we can go back to any iteration of the game at any time, all of which are now supported with new material through various means. I'll never understand the animosity for changes moving forward when it changes nothing in the past. Resistance could cost us the next great thing, and a return to what has been done most certainly will.

Speaking more to the business end of your response, I'm pretty sure WotC's mainline property is Magic and, to me at least, it made perfect sense exploring divergent design principles than 3e and try appealing to wider audiences with the 4e of their secondary game, as I still do, through any number of changes, including the slaying of whatever sacred cows necessary to create a new D&D experience that is fun, popular and prosperous.

Expanding, omitting and reinterpreting D&D are not slights to those who've come before. Look at what wonderful things are happening for the previous editions. D&D is alive and well in whatever version we want, but I maintain the future of the game should not be going backward to revisit the former mechanics or seek any sort of appeasement, apology or 'coming home' for gamers who have found their happy edition, found a new game entirely or left under some necessary or silly pretense. It lies in new ground, new design. And that, ironically, is the best hope for reconciling, as some have already pointed out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the flipside, one of the great maxims of business is "Innovate or die."

There is some truth to Pour's assertion, but one of the revelations of 4Ed was that innovation for it's own sake isn't necessarily going to be well-received. The trick is divining what your market wants.

I- like a lot of players- wanted and would have welcomed a cleaning up and refinement of 3.5. Looking at just one element of the game, many people wanted wizards to be wizardy all the time, eschewing the use of mundane things like crossbows. That could have been done along he lines of the specialist rules found in Unearthed Arcana or the reserve feats. Instead, we got the AEDU system and a nearly complete excision of Vancian casting.

That ticked off a lot of people...buy it also pleased a buck of people, including opening the game to new players.

A refinement of 3.5 might have done likewise- we'll probably never know- but 4Ed did succeed.

And for WotC to innovate away from another successful system- immediately after having done so before- merely to innovate would probably be a bad idea. Paid me though it does to say it, but if they opt to go with a single RPG system for the next incarnation of D&D, they're better off evolving from 4Ed than designing a complete new game.

 

[BryonD]

A hypothetical awesome game could absolutely create a "unified" market. "Unified" defined as comparable to the massive D20 boom previously experienced. Obviously there were plenty of people who hated the system. But, even more obviously, the was a major market dominance in play.

So, yes. WotC could make a huge chunk of the market follow one game, regardless of whether or not me or any other one person was a fan of the new game.

However, 3E was lightning in a bottle. And the marketplace is even more challenging now than it was then. The chances of actual success are very small.

And, that's just talking about system. There are a lot of people torked at WotC specifically, and that just adds to the burden.

And a system which would have the old appeal would also, pretty much be definition, alienate some meaningful chunk of the current fan base.

Far and away WotC's best choice is to work with what they have for a few years yet.

 

[triqui]

I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players.

If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.

 

[Nagol]

I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players.

If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.

Of course, 0e/Holmes Basic/1e didn't target existing customers because there weren't any yet/. Has D&D ever /just/ targeted existing players? There's a reson it is/was considered the "gateway" RPG.

However, you don't want to just get 12-year olds unless you can survive on their discretionary spend and compete with all the other options to spend.

 

[triqui]

However, you don't want to just get 12-year olds unless you can survive on their discretionary spend and compete with all the other options to spend.

12 years old have an incredibly amount of spending power, as any father with a pokemon-loving child will tell you

But you are right. WotC should not target only 12 years old that have never played the game before. They can target 20 years old that have never played the game before . The younger, the better, becouse it means a larger potential (a 12 years old that plays until he is 40 gives more revenue than a 20 years old that plays until he is 40) The trick is, however, that they need to take new players into the hobby, or the hobby will vanish eventually. When the grognards die of old age, at the very least...