D&D 5E D&D next ... fate or doom ?

[MoxieFu]

I have to disagree with you on this. D&D isn't a game (or at least it's not solely a game), it's a brand. I'm not telling you anything you don't know when I point out that OGL games can't use the D&D brand, or even mention it. Even the biggest of the competitors (Pathfinder) doesn't get the shelf space at Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, Target, whatever, that D&D does despite currently outselling D&D through other channels. If the D&D brand is mothballed, I do not take it as a given that other RPGs will be given the vacated shelf space, and even if they are, they aren't D&D. Not every new gamer is either spawned by another gamer or introduced to the game by other gamers. I'd be surprised if even a majority were.

A 12-ear-old kid who's heard about D&D and goes to Wal-Mart looking for it, and doesn't find it, but instead finds all this "Pathfinder" stuff -- what's this kid going to do? D&D is a presence that other games aren't and never will be, and it has influence beyond what it puts on the shelf.

And yes, I can keep playing my Pathfinder or CoC or whatever, but I'm not the issue. The hobby needs the thing called D&D to be front and center or new people will not come at anything like the rate the hobby needs to sustain the production of new, quality material across a broad range of games.

Frankly I just don't believe there are hordes of 12-year-olds flocking to the stores to buy D&D. In the first place, where did they hear about it? In fact I think that the reason we are seeing 5e is exactly because there aren't enough 12-year-olds filling in for the loss of those who left WotC D&D.

 

[Shadeydm]

(I am more worried that the Fourth Edition's goodness will not be carried forward. Essentials have already muddied that spring of living water.)

Does this mean you don't like essentials? Do you consider it 4.5?

 

[seregil]

At this moment, I cannot say if 5E is good or bad. We should get some idea with the release (finally!!) of the beta rules.

That being said, if I catch even so much as a whif of the 'I slap the guy over here and my friend over there heals that sucking chest wound' healing surge stupidity, 5E's chances are slim to none.

Some people are worried about 4E 'goodness' not being carried over. While 4E did have some good ideas that I want kept, 4E's success (or LACK of it, to be precise) indicates that it should NOT be the 'defining' edition for 5E.

Yes, I know, they are going to try and make something that appeals to all fans. It's just that you have your core rules and they will have to adopt the basic engine of one of the editions.

I doubt we'll see a return of the THAC0 (Amen!), the basic to hit mechanism will surely be the standard D20 + bonuses versus DC.

That is something that both 3E and 4E had.

It's how the spells/powers work that will set the tone and determine if 5E is fate or doom. The basic 'i swing my sword' is pretty much of a given. The rest, not so much.

 

[Dungeonmastermark]

....

I think the D&D is a brand name for sure... Its troubling if the the Grandfather of RPG's would " go under"..
that being said. I dont think the Monte Cook is the only hope for the next version of D&D but his statement does make one wonder...

The what appears to be a 5 year schedule of a new system irritates me, It seems like Hasbro milking WOTC for all its worth.

 

[Tallifer]

Does this mean you don't like essentials? Do you consider it 4.5?

I consider it a mess. Essentialized classes take up twice as many pages as they did in the PHB1. Essentials added meaningless and dull fluff to every power and even more white space. The character builder since Essentials now takes up 5 pages instead of 2 to make a first level character.

But no, I do not consider it 4.5. I can still roll up a PHB1 Fighter, Wizard or Warlord and play it at the same table with the new Essentials builds. (Clerics however are best served by looking at the new Essentials Wisdom melee powers, but that is actually a good thing.)

 

[Thotas]

... even if the next edition DID wind up with the name "D&D Next" (as it's not entirely unheard of for a working title to stick) who are the customers who wouldn't buy the game if it's awesome but they're dissatisfied with the name?

There was a poll asking us pick from a list of possible names. One option was "D&D Extreme". I can't out and out say it would've stopped me from buying the game, but it might've also sold me a big Sharpie or other method of blotting that one word off of all my copies of products with that logo.

 

[Argyle King]

I think D&D Durango will probably do well. However, I am uncertain if it will do nearly as well as intended. I believe it will do well because there are still enough people who will buy pretty much anything with the name D&D on it that coasting by on name recognition is still -in theory- possible (at least in the beginning.) I believe it may not do as well as expected because I believe the community is more open to playing other games, and I also believe the hobby is in the process of evolving the ability to survive without D&D if need be.

That last part is important because it means that -while name recognition still helps- there are places for customers to go if the product doesn't hit the mark. Alternatively, there are also places that customers might go instead if other companies perform well (there are some competitors who are doing some pretty good work right now.) I do not believe D&D is as synonymous with rpgs as it once was. It still has recognition, and I would say it still sits atop the industry, but I believe the gap between D&D's position and the rest of the field has grown smaller.

A stumbling block coming out of the gate and/or too much reliance on name recognition might lend the strength needed by the competition to gain a more permanent hold on the spotlight.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm sorry, I just can't...

I see this thread every day and...

Fate and doom are synonyms, okay? They are two words that mean the same thing.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I think the D&D is a brand name for sure... Its troubling if the the Grandfather of RPG's would " go under"..
that being said. I dont think the Monte Cook is the only hope for the next version of D&D but his statement does make one wonder...

The what appears to be a 5 year schedule of a new system irritates me, It seems like Hasbro milking WOTC for all its worth.

Ah, the good old "Ha$bro drains WotC like a vampire!" thing. This unsupported, anticorporate blather crawled out of the primal soup when TSR went under, and it has been with us ever since. Kinda like rats and humanity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, the good old "Ha$bro drains WotC like a vampire!" thing. This unsupported, anticorporate blather crawled out of the primal soup when TSR went under, and it has been with us ever since. Kinda like rats and humanity.

Hasn't the anti-corporate blather been around in D&D at least since Gygax was forced out of TSR in 1985? And in that case it had very good reason. (As for the new sytem, Hasbro has unrealistic targets if Dancey is to be believed).