innerdude
Legend
A lot of speculation has been going on surrounding what, exactly, WotC hopes to actually accomplish with 5e/D&D Next, besides sell some books and create business profit. I think all of us by now are realistic enough to know that the "edition treadmill" of the last decade has primarily been the brainchild of Hasbro, and not the core "creatives" of the D&D product line.
But the longer I've thought about it, the more I've come to the realization that D&D-Next is largely not about the rules system at all--it's about creating an ecology that builds and sustains gaming groups.
I think WotC is smart enough to realize that the market now is so vastly different from 1980, or even a decade ago, that returning to its previous levels of market saturation is not a realistic proposition. Seriously, in 2008, who in their right mind would have predicted that 4 years later, D&D wouldn't even be the most popular RPG in the category it created?
Some of this is the result of the table-top gaming market being in a relatively mature phase--it's known to exist, has a measurable, if limited amount of potential revenue to businesses selling into it, and as a result, companies other than WotC have gotten better at targeting it. The problem is, with that maturation has come the inevitable fragmentation. There's more competition filling every possible niche. Somewhere, out there, there's a game that appeals to nearly any game genre, in any playstyle. The likelihood of D&D being the sole RPG game being played within a given group drops the longer a group stays together.
But here's the thing--the longer a group stays together, the more chances WotC has to capture a portion of business within that group. There's a greater chance that a particular module, or campaign setting, or set of minis, or maps, or rules supplement, whatever, will catch the eye of the players or GM. And I think this is D&D Next's real aim--create more sustainable gaming groups where D&D is a real, viable option for play.
It's not likely that they would, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Wizards reprinted the 1e PHB, DMG, and MM verbatim, called it the "new, officially supported version of D&D," and their revenue stream wouldn't drastically change.
In this sense, the purpose of D&D has changed. To a degree it's about actually playing D&D--but in another sense, it's more about creating a culture surrounding the game that the players want to sustain on their own. And say what you want about 4e as a rules system, but WotC has done an absolutely AWFUL job at doing this with 4e. There's lots and lots of resources for 4e, but except for its most stalwart fans, the groundswell of support for keeping 4e as "The Definitive D&D" simply hasn't been there.
Ultimately, I think the realistic goal of D&D Next is it for it to simply be in the rotation of RPGs being played for as many groups as possible, whereas for many, many gaming groups, 4e has simply been a non-starter. It never even crossed the minds of many groups to even try it.
I don't think WotC expects 5e to dominate the market--heck, they haven't even dominated it the last year and a half; their main competitor has. And obviously the reason WotC wants to bridge the gap so badly between editions, and across playstyles, is to make money. But I think it's also driven by the profound recognition that if 1/2 of your target audience no longer even attributes your brand as the "core" experience your hobby promotes, that long-term you're going to lose even more traction, because you're losing future players before they even "touch" your product. Every iPod, iPad, and iPhone Apple sells isn't just a "win" for them--it's one more excuse for the user to think, "Hmmm, maybe I don't even need that Microsoft stuff at all."
The goal of D&D-Next should be to have a place at every gaming table. It doesn't have to be the dominant presence, but it needs to be there. If your gaming group's next conversation of "What rules system should our next campaign use?" doesn't include D&D Next / 5e as a realistic option, then Wizards will have utterly failed.
Whether it's the game everyone plays every week, or once every six months in rotation isn't as important as simply being an option for as many gaming groups as possible. And frankly, for all its strengths, 4e simply wasn't the product to do that.
But the longer I've thought about it, the more I've come to the realization that D&D-Next is largely not about the rules system at all--it's about creating an ecology that builds and sustains gaming groups.
I think WotC is smart enough to realize that the market now is so vastly different from 1980, or even a decade ago, that returning to its previous levels of market saturation is not a realistic proposition. Seriously, in 2008, who in their right mind would have predicted that 4 years later, D&D wouldn't even be the most popular RPG in the category it created?
Some of this is the result of the table-top gaming market being in a relatively mature phase--it's known to exist, has a measurable, if limited amount of potential revenue to businesses selling into it, and as a result, companies other than WotC have gotten better at targeting it. The problem is, with that maturation has come the inevitable fragmentation. There's more competition filling every possible niche. Somewhere, out there, there's a game that appeals to nearly any game genre, in any playstyle. The likelihood of D&D being the sole RPG game being played within a given group drops the longer a group stays together.
But here's the thing--the longer a group stays together, the more chances WotC has to capture a portion of business within that group. There's a greater chance that a particular module, or campaign setting, or set of minis, or maps, or rules supplement, whatever, will catch the eye of the players or GM. And I think this is D&D Next's real aim--create more sustainable gaming groups where D&D is a real, viable option for play.
It's not likely that they would, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Wizards reprinted the 1e PHB, DMG, and MM verbatim, called it the "new, officially supported version of D&D," and their revenue stream wouldn't drastically change.
In this sense, the purpose of D&D has changed. To a degree it's about actually playing D&D--but in another sense, it's more about creating a culture surrounding the game that the players want to sustain on their own. And say what you want about 4e as a rules system, but WotC has done an absolutely AWFUL job at doing this with 4e. There's lots and lots of resources for 4e, but except for its most stalwart fans, the groundswell of support for keeping 4e as "The Definitive D&D" simply hasn't been there.
Ultimately, I think the realistic goal of D&D Next is it for it to simply be in the rotation of RPGs being played for as many groups as possible, whereas for many, many gaming groups, 4e has simply been a non-starter. It never even crossed the minds of many groups to even try it.
I don't think WotC expects 5e to dominate the market--heck, they haven't even dominated it the last year and a half; their main competitor has. And obviously the reason WotC wants to bridge the gap so badly between editions, and across playstyles, is to make money. But I think it's also driven by the profound recognition that if 1/2 of your target audience no longer even attributes your brand as the "core" experience your hobby promotes, that long-term you're going to lose even more traction, because you're losing future players before they even "touch" your product. Every iPod, iPad, and iPhone Apple sells isn't just a "win" for them--it's one more excuse for the user to think, "Hmmm, maybe I don't even need that Microsoft stuff at all."
The goal of D&D-Next should be to have a place at every gaming table. It doesn't have to be the dominant presence, but it needs to be there. If your gaming group's next conversation of "What rules system should our next campaign use?" doesn't include D&D Next / 5e as a realistic option, then Wizards will have utterly failed.
Whether it's the game everyone plays every week, or once every six months in rotation isn't as important as simply being an option for as many gaming groups as possible. And frankly, for all its strengths, 4e simply wasn't the product to do that.
Last edited:
