A
amerigoV
Guest
One should always remember the wise words of Meatloaf
"I'll do anything for love...but I won't do THAT"
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
D&D 5E Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?
- Thread starter Tony Vargas
- Start date
One should always remember the wise words of Meatloaf
"I'll do anything for love...but I won't do THAT"
Why choose to phrase things like this? "Wrench"??
This sentence is an argument against ever producing another role-playing again. We mustn't attempt to drag loyal fans from the favorite militant ideologies... I mean pastimes.
Let's leave all the "one edition to unite them all" rhetoric aside for a moment.
Ask yourself two questions:
1 - Do you ever plan to buy another role-playing again?
2 - Do you enjoy more than a single version of D&D?
My answer to both questions is "yes". Therefore, I welcome D&D Next. Regardless of whether it unites anyone. Right now, I'm also keen on Dungeon Crawl Classics. Should we be up in arms over Goodman Games' naked attempt to rip players, bloodily and bodily, away from Labyrinth Lord?
I've noticed this schizophrenic response from the gaming community when it comes to releasing new systems. If it's a product from a small publisher, or say, a free retroclone, there is much rejoicing. "Yay! More games." However a new official version of D&D is great with intense skepticism, and cries of "Oh noes! Fragmentation! The new game will further divide us into warring factions!". Why is this?
Last edited:
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
I think at the very least that Next will produce the Unearthed Arcana II, III, and IV for whatever edition best fits your style.
Because D&D is the dominant RPG. It's the one that everyone knows about. It's popular. Everyone plays it. People know the rules. I can go into a random gaming club and say, "I'm running a D&D game," and people will know exactly what I'm talking about. If I do the same and say, "I'm running Swords & Wizardry," people are going to give me blank stares.
It's also much easier to organize and run a game when there is a shared ruleset that everyone knows.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Because that IS the differing effect of two such releases. The small, independent game release of a retroclone does not disturb "The Force". Taking a new edition of D&D, ceasing to support the existing edition and filling the shelves with ONLY releases of the "New and Improved!" edition with go-faster stripes has MASSIVE effects upon the gaming community.
From the POV of a gaming consumer you mess with the status quo at your peril. The indie game is a welcome change for only those who care to try it. The new official version affects everyone and it's just about guaranteed these days that a LARGE percentage of people WON'T like it. Even if they might be amenable to it they are going to see support for the current version that their games are operating under yanked from under their feet. People tend to react poorly to that sort of thing making the new version an even tougher sell to a larger segment of the population.
RPG's don't have an expiration date. They have a "gaming half-life" that is a LOT longer than the cycle that WotC is operating under where they need to sell a new edition. The older editions don't wear out just by taking them off the FLGS shelves. On a slightly different level TSR saw D&D sales decline by producing too many SETTINGS for 2E. WotC, I believe, is seeing their D&D sales decline by having introduced too many VERSIONS of D&D without the ability to make everyone move en masse to only the newest one.
tomBitonti
Adventurer
So, I know that a stated goal of D&D Next is to unify the fan base, partly by making a modular system. Increasingly, I've been doubting that that is the main goal.
What if the main goal of D&D Next is simply to make a better game? To put the corporate focus on making a better role playing game, this time without constraining the game to run very very well on a virtual table? D&D Next doesn't need to unify players to succeed (although that helps), it just needs find a large enough marketplace.
Of note, if the next edition turns out to be a rather good game, it might achieve the goal of unification simply because a lot of people choose to play it, with each new player giving more of a reason for other players to switch.
TomB
What if the main goal of D&D Next is simply to make a better game? To put the corporate focus on making a better role playing game, this time without constraining the game to run very very well on a virtual table? D&D Next doesn't need to unify players to succeed (although that helps), it just needs find a large enough marketplace.
Of note, if the next edition turns out to be a rather good game, it might achieve the goal of unification simply because a lot of people choose to play it, with each new player giving more of a reason for other players to switch.
TomB
Abstruse
Legend
Yes, we do need D&D Next to be the "One Edition".
4th Edition continues to sell, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
3.x continues to sell via Pathfinder, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
0e-2nd Ed continues to sell via OSR systems, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
The fact that all of these editions still have a demand prove that there is still a fanbase for Dungeons & Dragons, but it is a fractured one. Which is not a good thing for either gamers or the company.
It's not good for the company because the market is divided. If someone's buying used TSR/WotC products off eBay or Amazon, that's money being spent that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. If someone's buying Pathfinder products, that's money being spend that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. You can argue that may be a good thing to show them what they're doing wrong, but 4th Edition still outsells Pathfinder if you include all markets including retail bookstore chains rather than only counting independent game/comic stores. Also, Wizards of the Coast is giving money away to Paizo since the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary is somewhere around 90% work that they did and paid for when writing 3rd Edition and 3.5. This is bad for the company.
It's also not good for gamers because it creates situations that make it difficult to game with the people you want to game with. I'd love to run a game with 4 of my friends. However, as DM I prefer 1st Edition style exploration games or 4th Edition style action games depending on the campaign I have in mind. Player 1 likes 2nd Edition best, Player 2 only plays 4e, Player 3 doesn't know the rules for anything but 3rd Edition, and Player 4 is a power gamer who is obsessed with character optimization in Pathfinder.
This means we have to come to a compromise over what edition to play and any choice we make is going to make other people unhappy. If we play Pathfinder, there's too many options for the 2nd Ed player, the 4e player feels the game is unbalanced, and I can't run my dangerous exploration style game or my action-oriented campaign without lots of work adapting the source material. If we play 4th Edition, the 3rd Ed and 2nd Ed players are completely lost and confused, the Pathfinder player is annoyed he can't charop the same way he used to, and I can't run my slower exploration-based games. If we play OSR or 1st Ed, I'm the only one that's happy because only the 2nd Ed player and myself understand crap like descending AC and racial limits on class/level, and I'm killing players left and right if I try to run my action-based game.
And this is the important part...It doesn't matter which system I choose because I will then have to explain a completely different ruleset to multiple players. I have to teach the rules and subtle differences to each different player. I have to remind the 4e player constantly that standing from prone provokes in Pathfinder, the 2nd Ed player that rogue backstab requires flanking or some other condition in PF/4e rather than just being behind them, the 3.5 player that disarm is a combat maneuver in Pathfinder, etc. Not only do I have to teach the new rules to half the table while the other half who knows the rules is bored senseless, but I have to keep the different rules for different editions straight myself.
If Next does what it's trying to do (and it looks like it might pull it off), there will be exactly one set of rules to learn. I'll be able to switch between my exploration-style game and my action game seemlessly, my 4e player will get the game balance and tactics he wants, the 2nd Ed player will get the streamlined play he wants, the Pathfinder player will have options to trick out his character and fine-tune it all he wants, and the 3rd Edition player will have very simple rules to learn that aren't coming completely out of left field. And we can all play at the same table without having our personal preference for game style to dominate the game for everyone else.
It will also be good for the industry as a whole as all those different styles of play will need to be represented by products. If they do some sort of OGL for the system (and considering the amount of material to be represented and the complex legalities of copyrighting rules systems, I don't see why they wouldn't have something even if it is as restrictive as 4e's version), that will allow 3rd Party publishers to fill in the gaps. Even if they don't, Wizards would probably be willing to license off campaign settings they won't have the time or resources to develop but which have a strong following like Blackmoor, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance.
4th Edition continues to sell, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
3.x continues to sell via Pathfinder, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
0e-2nd Ed continues to sell via OSR systems, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.
The fact that all of these editions still have a demand prove that there is still a fanbase for Dungeons & Dragons, but it is a fractured one. Which is not a good thing for either gamers or the company.
It's not good for the company because the market is divided. If someone's buying used TSR/WotC products off eBay or Amazon, that's money being spent that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. If someone's buying Pathfinder products, that's money being spend that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. You can argue that may be a good thing to show them what they're doing wrong, but 4th Edition still outsells Pathfinder if you include all markets including retail bookstore chains rather than only counting independent game/comic stores. Also, Wizards of the Coast is giving money away to Paizo since the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary is somewhere around 90% work that they did and paid for when writing 3rd Edition and 3.5. This is bad for the company.
It's also not good for gamers because it creates situations that make it difficult to game with the people you want to game with. I'd love to run a game with 4 of my friends. However, as DM I prefer 1st Edition style exploration games or 4th Edition style action games depending on the campaign I have in mind. Player 1 likes 2nd Edition best, Player 2 only plays 4e, Player 3 doesn't know the rules for anything but 3rd Edition, and Player 4 is a power gamer who is obsessed with character optimization in Pathfinder.
This means we have to come to a compromise over what edition to play and any choice we make is going to make other people unhappy. If we play Pathfinder, there's too many options for the 2nd Ed player, the 4e player feels the game is unbalanced, and I can't run my dangerous exploration style game or my action-oriented campaign without lots of work adapting the source material. If we play 4th Edition, the 3rd Ed and 2nd Ed players are completely lost and confused, the Pathfinder player is annoyed he can't charop the same way he used to, and I can't run my slower exploration-based games. If we play OSR or 1st Ed, I'm the only one that's happy because only the 2nd Ed player and myself understand crap like descending AC and racial limits on class/level, and I'm killing players left and right if I try to run my action-based game.
And this is the important part...It doesn't matter which system I choose because I will then have to explain a completely different ruleset to multiple players. I have to teach the rules and subtle differences to each different player. I have to remind the 4e player constantly that standing from prone provokes in Pathfinder, the 2nd Ed player that rogue backstab requires flanking or some other condition in PF/4e rather than just being behind them, the 3.5 player that disarm is a combat maneuver in Pathfinder, etc. Not only do I have to teach the new rules to half the table while the other half who knows the rules is bored senseless, but I have to keep the different rules for different editions straight myself.
If Next does what it's trying to do (and it looks like it might pull it off), there will be exactly one set of rules to learn. I'll be able to switch between my exploration-style game and my action game seemlessly, my 4e player will get the game balance and tactics he wants, the 2nd Ed player will get the streamlined play he wants, the Pathfinder player will have options to trick out his character and fine-tune it all he wants, and the 3rd Edition player will have very simple rules to learn that aren't coming completely out of left field. And we can all play at the same table without having our personal preference for game style to dominate the game for everyone else.
It will also be good for the industry as a whole as all those different styles of play will need to be represented by products. If they do some sort of OGL for the system (and considering the amount of material to be represented and the complex legalities of copyrighting rules systems, I don't see why they wouldn't have something even if it is as restrictive as 4e's version), that will allow 3rd Party publishers to fill in the gaps. Even if they don't, Wizards would probably be willing to license off campaign settings they won't have the time or resources to develop but which have a strong following like Blackmoor, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I'd love to see 5E be like Wyld Stallyns music ... align the spheres, unite the masses, and end edition wars forever, if only because then we'd have a truly common experience and it would be easy to jump from group to group and not have to argue over who likes what, or qualify "I like D&D" with "what type?"
Back here on earth, however, it's most important that people get to play the game they like. So while I certainly hope 5E is a good representation of D&D and commercially successful, I don't want it to succeed at the expense of crushing those fans of 4E, 3E, 2E, 1E, BECMI, or OD&D. No one should be forced to be assimilated into the collective.
Be Excellent to each other, EN World!
Back here on earth, however, it's most important that people get to play the game they like. So while I certainly hope 5E is a good representation of D&D and commercially successful, I don't want it to succeed at the expense of crushing those fans of 4E, 3E, 2E, 1E, BECMI, or OD&D. No one should be forced to be assimilated into the collective.
Be Excellent to each other, EN World!
Tony Vargas
Legend
Seemed appropriate. 4e was kinda sprung on the community, 5e is being given more lead time, but 4e wasn't even 4 years into it's run before it was announced. Thus, they both had a sense of suddenness to them.
Not at all. Fans of AD&D, 3e and 4e are all fans of D&D. They've all bought and enjoyed WotCs products. They're all at least former customers. The ones that are former customers are only /former/ customers because WotC stopped making what they liked. The business objective of winning back the former customers makes sense. Doing it by discontinuing what current customers like might not be the best approach. Bringing back what former customers liked could work better. The only question is if it's practical. Re-printing AD&D can't be that resource intensive, but developing new AD&D-compatible products, while also doing the same for 3e and continuing to develop 4e, might be.
I'd speculate it's because D&D is the first/biggest RPG, the only one that's close to a household name. If you're a fan of an indie game, you're part of an obscure group and few people would form opinions about you based on it. If you're a fan of D&D, you might be like the fan of a sports team, you identify with it, it's success and the form it took when you became a fan (which is short for fanatic, of course). Changing the game, even if that change is an improvement, could be a threat to that identification and provoke an emotional response. If the fan base fragments, then it might not be the 'biggest' game anymore, and that prestige is tarnished, as well.
That might be one possible psychology behind resistance to new D&D eds, or even the impetus to want the game unified, and unified around the way it was.
Last edited:
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Abstruse said it very well, I think. I'll just add this: money is a huge factor from the players' end too. No matter what older system I wanted to play, I'd be stuck paying probably at least a hundred bucks for the core rulebooks, plus more for each player's PHB. (Or else spend hours of every session letting each player flip through the rulebook figuring out spells, feats, etc.)
I'd much rather have one very flexible system, with rules modules that let me adapt the gameplay style without having to buy whole new adventure modules or convert a bunch of character sheets.
Of course, if WOTC isn't careful, this could apply. 5e will need to be not only very good, but also very flexible, if they want to make it truly appeal to the whole gamut of D&D players.
That said, someone else here was right when they pointed out that most gaming groups care more about having fun with friends than the details of the ruleset, so there is some real hope that 5e could be popular with everyone.
I'd much rather have one very flexible system, with rules modules that let me adapt the gameplay style without having to buy whole new adventure modules or convert a bunch of character sheets.
Of course, if WOTC isn't careful, this could apply. 5e will need to be not only very good, but also very flexible, if they want to make it truly appeal to the whole gamut of D&D players.
That said, someone else here was right when they pointed out that most gaming groups care more about having fun with friends than the details of the ruleset, so there is some real hope that 5e could be popular with everyone.
Similar Threads
- Poll
