D&D 5E Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?

[Tony Vargas]

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."

Sauron worked great evil upon middle-earth by crafting one master ring to bring together all others and unite them under his power.

Does WotC really need to do the same for D&D?

The 'fragmentation' of the fanbase is treated like a bad thing, but, if you think about it, isn't it ultimately just a matter of players finding groups that better fit them as gamers?

Before 4e, D&D didn't offer a balanced system not easily or badly broken by 'system mastery.' Before 3e, it didn't support the serious gamer who /did/ want to strive for system mastery, it just broke more or less at random based on the DMs mistakes and the fall of the dice. Each edition of the game was flawed, but had fans who loved it for those flaws as much as for the things it may have gotten right.

Why try to wrench devoted fans of one edition or another away from their favorite game? Why not just sell to them? Retro-clones are doing great, most notably Pathfinder, of course. There's clearly enough interest to re-print AD&D. But why stop there? Why not offer up the whole library of past D&D products, either in print, or pdf or print on demand or in full books where demand is strong enough? Why not continue to support and expand each edition for those fans who can't bear to move on from it?

Of course, we could also have a "Next" edition for organized play and continuing to trawl for new players. It could be the face of the game, the thing that's on all the store shelves, but the 'hard stuff' could be behind the counter or on order for more devoted fans, too.

D&D did well in the early 80s with three editions in print at once - OD&D, AD&D, and the Basic set - /and/ unauthorized 3pp 'Arduin Grimoire,' as well, not to mention a host of imitators and new computer RPGs. That's 4 competing versions of the game, and the game prospered. The Rules Cyclopeadia stayed in print into the 90s while 2e was being launched.

So, today, we have 3.5 and 4e and a legal analogue to 'Arduin' in Pathfinder. There's no reason WotC couldn't have rolled with that and just re-started support for 3.5 again. There's no reason they couldn't re-print AD&D (in fact, they /are/ reprinting AD&D - there's no reason they couldn't re-start support for it, as well, the demand is probably there). They could even put out edition neutral products to support all of them. And, they could count all that revenue as "D&D," in trying to hit Hasbro's impossible survival numbers.


It's not just that people have different preferences, it's that there are different styles that work better in different eds, as well. Players who like the rich setting of 2e are not only not going to like the spartan suggestion of a setting in 4e, but they're not going to like playing with other gamers who /do/ like having only a vague hand-waved history of Nerath and Arkhosia to hang their character concepts on. Players who like the consistency and balance of 4e aren't just going to be unhappy playing less-robustly balanced 3.5, they'd be unhappy playing anything at the same table with game-busting system-masters whom it attracts.

Having gamers self-select by editions into groups that get along better seems like a positive, when you think about it.

D&D Next's noble goal is to get setting buffs and tacticians and narrativists and powergamers all sitting at the same table, again - and most likely, glaring at eachother in open disgust. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, does it?

 

[Nikmal]

Got to say I HATE edition wars and all I saw for the most part in your posting was that ALL the other editions of D&D and now Pathfinder (according to you is a clone and bad one at that I disagree) are all unbalanced and not very well done.

to me it is NOT about balance and that is what I hate about the way D&D went with 4th edition. I do NOT like a balanced system where power levels have to be the same across the board. If I wanted that I would play a dang video game and I played D&D for that reason... until 4E came out and then I opted not to buy the kool-aid that they were serving and kept up with Pathfinder instead. To me that kept the flavor of 3+E and fixed what was broken and NOT a clone.

Will I buy 5E.. it all depends.. are they going to balance the classes again and do the same dang rules glut that they are famous for of late.. then no I will not.. If they avoid the above two things then I might consider it.

 

[hafrogman]

D&D Next's noble goal is to get setting buffs and tacticians and narrativists and powergamers all sitting at the same table, again - and most likely, glaring at each other in open disgust. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, does it?

Your central assumption is that I should select my gaming group based on people who game like me instead of, you know, gaming with my friends?

I have friends who game. They are my friends first and foremost. I met many of them outside of gaming. I would like to play with my friends. I would like one edition that we can all compromise on. We don't glare at each other, because we're friends. We just disagree about what to play.

Also, as for the idea of supporting each and every previous edition of D&D at once? That's the kind of thinking that killed TSR.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]
I think you overstate the divisiveness of differences among gamers. Most of the folks I've gamed with are able to enjoy the other stuff even if they're primarily a tactical combat person or a method actor or whatever. All of my gaming groups have included players with a variety of play preferences. Typically when I've DMed I've had to wrestle with the system a bit (or make up new stuff) in order to please some of the players. So the idea of a system which accommodates multiple play styles is attractive to me.

But about bringing back PDFs, I am with you!

 

[Incenjucar]

It's just how the math works out in an industry of this type and size with Hasbro's expectations.

Business is a point-buy system with an adversarial DM who hates you.

 

[trancejeremy]

Also, as for the idea of supporting each and every previous edition of D&D at once? That's the kind of thinking that killed TSR.

I dunno. While I think TSR certainly had a lot of bloat in its D&D division (Birthright, for instance, had a huge amount of products that didn't sell all that great, like the little booklets for each kingdom), I think the main problem was its non D&D stuff.

Buck Rogers first and foremost. They only did that because the owner of TSR also owned the BR IP and thus could funnel money from TSR to themselves. They even had two different versions, the second of which really bombed.

Alternity was a neat game, but I'm not sure how it sold. I wouldn't even say Amazing Engine was neat.

Dragon Dice, their attempt at the CCG market (along with Spellfire).

All the novels. Some sold (the D&D ones) but others didn't.

Anyway, I agree with the OP - the different versions of D&D represent diametrically different philosophies of gameplay.

I'd do a lot of things for a friend, but playing 4e is not one of them, and I'm sure 4e fans feel the same about previous editions.

And D&D is more than just gaming with friends, being one of the biggest RPGs, there are a lot of organized events.

So I guess my point is, I think 5e is going to alienate a lot of people, when they should simply not be trying to please everyone with one product. I mean, even Coca-Cola has Sprite, not just Coke related drinks.

 

[Lanefan]

I have friends who game. They are my friends first and foremost. I met many of them outside of gaming. I would like to play with my friends. I would like one edition that we can all compromise on. We don't glare at each other, because we're friends. We just disagree about what to play.

Well said.

Also, as for the idea of supporting each and every previous edition of D&D at once? That's the kind of thinking that killed TSR.

I disagree. Lots of things did TSR in but supporting all editions wasn't one of them. In fact, broad edition support may have even helped them hang on a bit longer; in that things like settings and adventures for 2e could be relatively easily ported into 1e and 0e and thus they probably sold a few more than if they had been completely incompatible.

Lan-"one edition to rule them all, and in the darkness take their stuff"-efan

 

[Serendipity]

The 'fracturing of the fanbase' may be bad for Wizards but I'm not sure it was bad for the fans, nor for D&D. A lot of people seem to conflate the state of the hobby with the state of the industry. They're two totally separate things.

For my part, I don't need another edition of D&D. I've got four I am willing & able to play already (at least, and this in addition to other RPGs). If the next edition is to my liking, then I'll pick it up and obviously if it isn't I won't. I think that a lot of other people are increasingly in the same position, whether they realize it or not. This is the sum of WotC's quandry I think - they need a definitive edition because each subsequent edition is at this point going to attract a smaller and smaller contingent of existing players. From the standpoint of the gamer however, an edition that tries to be all things to all people is almost certainly doomed to failure.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's no reason why people with different personalities can't get along.

There's also no reason why people who don't get along should game together, regardless of edition.

There is, however, a reason to make a D&D ruleset that is less divisive and can be played by a broader customer base. There really wasn't this kind of split until 4e; 3e was quite successful in achieving the inclusivity that 5e is supposed to offer, as was 2e before it. Really they're just talking about going back to that. WotC is a business. Their products and business strategy alienated a large portion of their customer base, and hurt the business. They are trying to backtrack on that. Makes sense to me.

 

[Matt James]

Someone save this thread. It was the first shot fired in the next edition war. Thanks Tony.