D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's not the WATNA that's the problem. It's that the NA is indistinguishable from the WATNA.

I disagree. That the path to successful outcomes may be narrow is something I don't doubt, but that does not mean that those successes and the WATNAs are indistinguishable. There are a LOT of NAs that are clearly better than the WATNAs laid out

5Ed could be a game that strikes the right balance of elements could be an industry blockbuster, bringing most of the fanbase into the fold and new players to the game, not just on the strength of the game mechanics & touchstones to its legacy, but also to an electronic initiative that does what was promised at the dawn of 4Ed.

It could be just good enough to supplant any prior editions as the best seller, with good online tools and minimal splitting of the fanbase.

It could be almost as good a market force as the prior best seller, with OK online tools and a moderate schism

Any of those and more besides could make 5Ed a success EASILY distinguishable from one of the WATNAs.

A miserable failure is IMO less likely to be correctable over the life of the brand.

In my professional experience, this is seldom the case in entertainment. The public is fickle and harsh, and major failures have sunk many a brand. Moderate ones, not so much. Exceptions exist, but they are rare.

 

[Ahnehnois]

4e certainly did not hit the ground running. And I think it's one of the disconnects between 4e lovers and 4e haters - the 4e haters normally talk as if the PHB was the sum total of 4e, when to the 4e lovers, Essentials came out over two years ago - or about half the life of the edition ago.

I don't think it's the fanbase that created those attitudes though. The company itself proudly stated that there "would be no 4.5", and that "everything is core", marketing the game as one cohesive system, not iteratively. In other words, they pooh-poohed the idea that it would be improved over its lifetime, because it was done right the first time. Clearly, however, it has been revised substantially, AFAICT moreso than 3e was over its lifetime.

This is also elucidative in terms of one of the more bizarre claims I've seen on these boards: the idea that 3.0 and 3.5 were separate editions, and had shorter lifespans than 4e, one edition, has had. Obviously, this idea is misleading, in that there has really been a 4.1, 4.2, 4.Essentials, etc.

None of these notes really speaks to the merits of those revisions or the thing being revised, but I gather that frequent errata has not been a good thing for WotC, and that trying to improve their game has not been successful in the way they had hoped.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree. That the path to successful outcomes may be narrow is something I don't doubt, but that does not mean that those successes and the WATNAs are indistinguishable. There are a LOT of NAs that are clearly better than the WATNAs laid out

5Ed could be a game that strikes the right balance of elements could be an industry blockbuster, bringing most of the fanbase into the fold and new players to the game, not just on the strength of the game mechanics & touchstones to its legacy, but also to an electronic initiative that does what was promised at the dawn of 4Ed.

The problem is that the path you describe would appear to be the equivalent of convincing an elephant to walk a tightrope over a chasm. I've said before and I'll say agan, I literally do not understand who the target audience for D&D next is on a case by case level.

It could be just good enough to supplant any prior editions as the best seller, with good online tools and minimal splitting of the fanbase.

It could. But without a coherent target audience, it is incredibly unlikely to get this. There is literally no one with an incentive to change to the lowest common denominator D&D over their current game. And the compromise edition

Any of those and more besides could make 5Ed a success EASILY distinguishable from one of the WATNAs.

Fine. Now show me a path there. Because the 4e business plan had a much easier route to success - unfortunately then Gleemax had a tragedy, destroying the online strategy and the in house development team never really recovered.

In my professional experience, this is seldom the case in entertainment. The public is fickle and harsh, and major failures have sunk many a brand. Moderate ones, not so much. Exceptions exist, but they are rare.

The problem is a miserable failure is a major failure. A resounding "meh" won't get people to get a second book. A heroic failure will involve a lot of downsizing but will at the very least have a long tail.

I don't think it's the fanbase that created those attitudes though. The company itself proudly stated that there "would be no 4.5", and that "everything is core", marketing the game as one cohesive system, not iteratively. In other words, they pooh-poohed the idea that it would be improved over its lifetime, because it was done right the first time. Clearly, however, it has been revised substantially, AFAICT moreso than 3e was over its lifetime.

Really? Because that's not what I understood with the "no 4.5" promise. 3.5 was amongst other things a near-shameless moneygrab that caused a lot of bad feeling at the time - no edition war, just bad feeling at the shamelessness of WotC. Some of the changes in 3.5 were good ones (the Bard, the Ranger, the fixed Haste rules). But it was deliberately incompatable with 3.0 to try to force people to rebuy all their core books.

What I took the promise to be was that WotC would not try to force us to rebuy the core rulebooks. And that they'd balance it so the DM didn't have to keep track of which sources were allowed (unlike in 3.X). And they kept to it until they produced themes for non-Dark Sun characters last year.

This is also elucidative in terms of one of the more bizarre claims I've seen on these boards: the idea that 3.0 and 3.5 were separate editions, and had shorter lifespans than 4e, one edition, has had. Obviously, this idea is misleading, in that there has really been a 4.1, 4.2, 4.Essentials, etc.

3.0 was literally pulled off the shelves. WotC stopped selling 3.0 and instead put out something deliberately slightly incompatable. They are still selling the 4e PHB. And that, not how far things have drifted, is the mark of a new edition.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Really? Because that's not what I understood with the "no 4.5" promise. 3.5 was amongst other things a near-shameless moneygrab that caused a lot of bad feeling at the time - no edition war, just bad feeling at the shamelessness of WotC. Some of the changes in 3.5 were good ones (the Bard, the Ranger, the fixed Haste rules). But it was deliberately incompatable with 3.0 to try to force people to rebuy all their core books.

What I took the promise to be was that WotC would not try to force us to rebuy the core rulebooks. And that they'd balance it so the DM didn't have to keep track of which sources were allowed (unlike in 3.X). And they kept to it until they produced themes for non-Dark Sun characters last year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 3.5 wasn't a shameless money grab. I'm saying that 4e merely grabbed in a shameless but different way, by (as you say) not putting its best foot forward, and releasing a set of core rules that was incomplete and woefully full of errors, and releasing errata and periodic new PHB/DMG/MM triads. You seem to have a problem with people judging 4e by those original rules rather than by what's come out since; I'm saying that WotC brought this criticism on themselves by doing things this way (as they did with 3.5 or in any number of other cases).

3.0 was literally pulled off the shelves. WotC stopped selling 3.0 and instead put out something deliberately slightly incompatable. They are still selling the 4e PHB. And that, not how far things have drifted, is the mark of a new edition.

I guess I'm not seeing the incompatible part. I didn't buy the 3.5 core books in print until after 4e came out, and I played 3.5 that entire time, off the SRD. I mixed tons of 3.0 and 3.5 material. Heck, I'm referring to at least three 3.0 books for the game I'm prepping right now.

So I don't see that pulling the 3.0 books signaled the end of the edition; they just pulled them for revised versions, much like they do with reprints that incorporate errata periodically. I just saw 3.5 as being a bunch of optional errata; I've continuously played the same basic system, periodically revising it, since 3.0 came out. So I just refer to 3e as "3.X" most of the time; I think it's fair to say that 3e was one edition. In that sense, it ran for quite a while (and is in some sense still being actively supported).

 

[Tony Vargas]

What I took the promise to be was that WotC would not try to force us to rebuy the core rulebooks. And that they'd balance it so the DM didn't have to keep track of which sources were allowed (unlike in 3.X). And they kept to it until they produced themes for non-Dark Sun characters last year.

Fair. Though I'd peg it at Essentials, which asked you to re-buy the core rule-books (it just cut-up and re-shuffled and doubled-up the PH and DMG into HotFL, HotFK & the RC), and introduced balance issues that made the decision to include Essentials (or pre-Essentials in an Essentials game) a non-trivial one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is literally no one with an incentive to change to the lowest common denominator D&D over their current game.

You seem to be assuming that 5Ed will be comprised of elements drawn from D&D editions' lowest common denominators, and I'm not sure that that is a safe assumption to make.

For example, if 4Ed proved anything to me, it is that it is possible to change Vancian casting mechanics and still retain certain Vancian elements...in some ways, truer to the Dying Earth stories than found in prior editions. I didn't care for the overall systematic reduction of Vancian casting in 4Ed, but I won't deny it's presence even with the mechanical differences.

Thus, as with prior edition changes, I will wait and see what the professional game designers come up with before I rule out its possibility of success.

Now show me a path there.

That's WotC/Hasbro's job. And I won't even try to figure out likely scenarios beyond the sketches above since I have seen a sum total of zero 5Ed material. I'll assess the product when it hits the shelves.

The problem is a miserable failure is a major failure.

We are clearly using different terminology.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 3.5 wasn't a shameless money grab. I'm saying that 4e merely grabbed in a shameless but different way, by (as you say) not putting its best foot forward, and releasing a set of core rules that was incomplete and woefully full of errors, and releasing errata and periodic new PHB/DMG/MM triads.

I really can't agree there - mostly for the reason that the errata to the players' books has been released for free. That's hardly money grabbing. As for the new triads, 2e has a PHB2. And all the content in each new triad has been new (with the sole exception of the spells for the mage class in Essentials). The PHB2 is basically a very good splatbook. And the PHB3 a, in all honesty, poor one. (The PHB3 monk is an awesome class - but I tell people to avoid the Runepriest and Seeker, and outright ban the three power point classes and hybrids).

As for incomplete, what do you mean? That they only had a limited number of classes? And 4e had 25 classes before Essentials?

You seem to have a problem with people judging 4e by those original rules rather than by what's come out since; I'm saying that WotC brought this criticism on themselves by doing things this way (as they did with 3.5 or in any number of other cases).

You seem to be ascribing to conspiracy what I consider to be a cockup. Monster Vault kicks the Monster Manual 1's arse. But I do not believe that at the time the PHB1 was published, the designers were capable of designing Monster Vault. I don't believe they realised what some of the issues were any more than the designers of 3.0 realised what they'd unleashed on the world with 3.0 Haste.

I guess I'm not seeing the incompatible part. I didn't buy the 3.5 core books in print until after 4e came out, and I played 3.5 that entire time, off the SRD. I mixed tons of 3.0 and 3.5 material. Heck, I'm referring to at least three 3.0 books for the game I'm prepping right now.

Congratulations. You are treating 3.0 the way 2e players often treated 1e. You might as well merge those editions by your math. But the changes made are all over the place - they altered the shape of a horse ffs. (5ft by 10ft to 10ft by 10ft). They changed the skill lists (and detail on about 30 of the skills with things ranging from name changes to near rewrites), a lot of spells, and more. And then there were changes to weapon sizes, DR, spell durations, XP calculation (leading to the XP is a river issue). And I'm missing quite a lot out. WotC of course never released a detailed conversion document.

For that matter, the game I'm preparing I'm using the 1e AD&D DMG, Vornheim, the 2e Undermountain box, the 2e Planescape boxed sets, and the 4e Undermountain book.

 

[Drowbane]

For me to consider it, 5e would have to feel 3e compatible. It would have to appear to be a "3e fix" for all the little flaws of that system.

If it feels like 4e+ then I'll pass.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As for incomplete, what do you mean?
...

You seem to be ascribing to conspiracy what I consider to be a cockup.

I'll just clarify this point. I'm not calling it a conspiracy, I'm calling it a business model. The idea was to release a PHB that didn't have all the classes/races you'd expect, a DMG with hastily conceived and poorly developed rules, and a Monster Manual barely worthy of the title to encourage people to buy more books or subscribe to DDI. I am not saying that it isn't a valid strategy, or that it didn't have any success, I'm just saying that it a) affected how people perceived the game, and b) affected how people perceived the company, such that many people have not bothered to look beyond the first PHB (which was the original issue). That's all I'm saying. You raised the issue as to why people often don't have detailed knowledge of 4e beyond the original set of books, and this is one reason why.

But the changes made are all over the place - they altered the shape of a horse ffs. (5ft by 10ft to 10ft by 10ft). They changed the skill lists (and detail on about 30 of the skills with things ranging from name changes to near rewrites), a lot of spells, and more. And then there were changes to weapon sizes, DR, spell durations, XP calculation (leading to the XP is a river issue). And I'm missing quite a lot out. WotC of course never released a detailed conversion document.

I distinctly recall there being conversion guides, although they may have lacked for detail.

It might not be pefectly balanced, but one can take a 3.0 monster right out of the book and throw it against 3.5 PCs, or vice versa. There are a few things to watch out for, but the numbers are the same and they scale the same way, feats are still feats, SR is still SR, etc. etc. To use the same monster in a 2e game, you'd have to rebuild it from the ground up, redoing all the numbers for THAC0 and rethinking all the feats/skills as they don't exist in 2e. To do it in 4e, you'd again have to throw out its stats and start over with powers and roles, as they don't exist in 3e.

I don't see the claim that 3rd edition is an edition (singular) as being a particularly controversial one.

For me to consider it, 5e would have to feel 3e compatible. It would have to appear to be a "3e fix" for all the little flaws of that system.

Oddly enough, that may be the first mention of compatibility in this 16 page thread. A good point.

(Or maybe not).

 

[JeffB]

Anyone discussing the original question anymore?

For me, the biggest thing is quality adventure material support. Unfortunately based on WOTCs track record since the late 1990s, I am not terribly hopeful.