D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[zoroaster100]

I like the OP's proposal, but I think what we need in such a branching is to have Wizards continue to support and develop 4e, develop a D&D next which is along the lines of where they seem to be headed, as a simpler version reminiscent of 2e but with improved design, and leave 3e to Paizo's Pathfinder and other OGL producers perhaps.

I like 4e and I think with a few tweaks it is already perfect for what it is meant to be.

But the hobby also needs a simpler D&D more reminiscent of 1e and 2e but with better design, which I think 5e can deliver. I don't think 5e can fulfill this need while also pleasing 4e fans, unless it branches as the OP suggests.

 

[Quickleaf]

Maybe D&D Should Branch?

So...are you advocating splitting the party?

 

[Gothikaiju]

I like the OP's proposal, but I think what we need in such a branching is to have Wizards continue to support and develop 4e, develop a D&D next which is along the lines of where they seem to be headed, as a simpler version reminiscent of 2e but with improved design, and leave 3e to Paizo's Pathfinder and other OGL producers perhaps.

I like 4e and I think with a few tweaks it is already perfect for what it is meant to be.

But the hobby also needs a simpler D&D more reminiscent of 1e and 2e but with better design, which I think 5e can deliver. I don't think 5e can fulfill this need while also pleasing 4e fans, unless it branches as the OP suggests.

This is very close to how I feel about it-- do Next as a BECMI/1E/2E update, tweak 4E (which might include excising feat, power, and item bloat--as well as MM1 era sack-o-HP monsters-- and including Essentials Classes and Hybrids in a new PH1 etc.)... and cede 3.5 to Paizo/Pathfinder.

 

[pemerton]

There is a large market for what is derisively called process simulation gaming.

I don't know why you see "process simulation" as derisive. My preferred term is "purist-for-system" - this is the term used at the Forge - but "process simulation" (which I first encountered on these boards being used by [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]) is more intuitive: the function of the mechanical system is to simulate the ingame causal processes of the shared fictional world. That is not derisive, it is descriptive. I greatly admire Rolemaster, RuneQuest and Classic Traveller as games, and process simulation seems an apt description for all three of them!

If they want to be productive about it, I'd say they should make sure that 5e collects all the 1e through 3.5e players that are actually collectable, and please all but the most hardcore wargaming-style 4e fans. Then continue 4e at a reduced pace alongside 5e, so the aforementioned hardcore wargaming-style fans remain happy.

I think characterising hardcore 4e fans as "wargaming style" - and therefore assuming that the rest might drift happily over to a shared D&Dnext - is a mistake.

4e's support for the "wargaming style" is a particular consequence of its general approach, of putting the mechanics forward as the principal arbiters of action resolution, under an assumption that both players and GMs will push the mechanics hard. This is, I think, the potential problem for the D&Dnext strategy, if it ends up relying too heavily on the GM to fiat action resolution.

For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers.

I think this passage from the OP does a good job of capturing the hardcore 4e mentality (at least as I see it): it's about tight and powerful action resolution, not wargaming.

 

[S'mon]

I'm in favour of kludgy, incoherent D&D that can be drifted into the sort of game I want to play.

 

[Yora]

And when they don't... D&D 6E goes into development.

I don't think so. If this goes belly up, who is left to get exited for 6th Edition?
Certainly not the 3rd edition fans who didn't like 4th edition either.
Also probably not the 4th edition fans who were dropped like a hot potatoe for 5th Edition.
Maybe 5th edition fans, but with every new edition some stick to their old one.

If 5th edition gets canceled as early as 4th, I'd expect D&D to be shelved and Hasbro no longer throwing any money into that black hole.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I like 4e and I think with a few tweaks it is already perfect for what it is meant to be.

The best tweak I implemented after DMing about 7 sessions was removing the 1/2 level bonus from all character's and monster's Attacks, Defences, and Skills (if you need to roll an 11 to hit, does it matter if the bonus is +7 or +17?)

 

[Ahnehnois]

Do you even know the name of "the Baldurs gate company"?

The company is called 'Bioware'. And THAT was all the "existing name recognition" players needed to know that Dragon Age: Origins (or, as Bioware referred to it "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate") was probably going to be good.

And do you know WHY Bioware was not making another Dungeons & Dragons video game? It's because THEY ALREADY DID IT. TWICE. Once with the Baldur's Gate series, and once with Neverwinter Nights. And Bioware specifically said they were no longer interested in working with another company's IP and wanted to create their own... which is why Mass Effect and Dragon Age were created, rather than going back for another NN sequel or Baldur's Gate 3.

So no... WotC WAS NOT going to spend the money to buy the video game rights to D&D off of Atari... WAS NOT going to get Bioware to make a new video game for them... and WAS NOT going to earn 440 million dollars through any sale of "D&D 4E" video game. And to believe otherwise is to not have any idea of how the video game industry actually works.

Once again... yes, I trust the business sense of Wizards of the Coast much more than some random dude who apparently didn't even know the name of the largest RPG video game company in the country (or 'countries' as it were, as Bioware is mainly based in Edmonton).

Fair enough. That said, Paizo has decided that it is a worthwhile endeavor to start up their own MMO, using their (presumably lesser) resources and their (definitely less valuable) IP. I trust Paizo's business sense a lot more than I trust WotC's or some random guy on the internet.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think so. If this goes belly up, who is left to get exited for 6th Edition?

That's my whole point. D&D DOESN'T go "belly up".

As much as folks have this idea that any particular edition of D&D has this "magical number" that says the game was successful or not successful, and if the game doesn't reach this number for a certain number of books over a certain number of years for a certain number of players... then the game is going to go away.

To which I respond... bullcrap.

I said it above... this "magic number" is just whatever amount is necessary to keep the doors of WotC open. No more, no less. Make some books, sell some books, use the money to pay for people to make more books. And as soon as a particular line of books is not capable of doing that... then make a new line of books.

In my personal opinion... there will ALWAYS be enough people like myself who don't give two shites about any stupid "edition war", who don't zero in on any one edition forsaking all others... who have the cash available to drop $100 every four years on a new edition of D&D books, because buying new D&D books IS FUN. And if WotC gets lucky, we'll also drop some money on a couple other books and maybe a DDI subscription. And the company will thus bring in enough cash to keep their lights on and pay the people inside the building. Long enough to create, write and sell a NEW EDITION of books four years later that people like myself will plop another $100 on.

I mean hell... why does Magic: The Gathering create a whole new set of cards like every three months? BECAUSE PEOPLE BUY THEM. End of story. If people buy what you sell... you'll continue to create stuff to sell. That's how business works.

 

[TwoSix]

I said it above... this "magic number" is just whatever amount is necessary to keep the doors of WotC open. No more, no less. Make some books, sell some books, use the money to pay for people to make more books. And as soon as a particular line of books is not capable of doing that... then make a new line of books.

Can't XP you, but I agree entirely.

WotC's goal should be to sell enough books to pay their salaries, the printing costs, the overhead, and a tiny cherry on top. If selling 3 editions does that, then they should do it. If only selling the latest attempt at the platonic ideal of D&D makes the most money, than do that.

Now which answer is correct.... I have no idea. For me, I wish it was the plan that gave me the option to buy the most books I like.