D&D 5E Is long-term support of the game important?

[Jester David]

This makes sense until you add in the expectation of constant profits resembling those gained immediately after launch. When the revenue demand from a product type is far out of whack for that product type, you get crazy stuff going on such as attempts to shorten the product lifecycle.

Making a profit is good but greed kills games.

It's trickier than even that.

WotC is first and foremost the Magic: the Gathering company. It was the game that put them on the map and makes them a bajillion dollars every quarter (rounded up to the nearest bajillion). And MtG is a very cyclical game. You release an annual starter set and then expansions every few months, and never, every have to look backwards. Old sets just cease to exist.

Book publishing, especially for RPGs is different. The core books need to be continually emphasized and your big released need to be relevant. You have to keep certain books in the public's eye, make them relevant and used and not forgettable. People should always start with the same few books and the old tent pole books should always be on new player's Must Buy list and not just whatever the latest release is.
It's a very different mindset to the marketing and managers over at WotC.

 

[billd91]

So, isn't it more important to support the game in long-term than to constantly correct presumable errors of the game in new editions and, in fact, to constantly split the fun base? Isn't it already the main drawback of Next that players suppose the end of the editon in 5 years already, and thus stick with their current game, which would be supported longer? Isn't it the main drawback of the new D&D generally?

What do you think?

I think long term support is important. It keeps the game on the shelves/on the online shops which keeps it fresher in the minds of the gaming public, keeps it more likely to be picked up and played, and helps maintain the player community. Chill hasn't been around in a while - how many people play it these days compared to Call of Cthulhu? Superworld compared to Champions? Star Frontiers compared to Traveller (though which edition of that one can get weird)?

I'm not terribly interested in playing the flash in the pan game that appears for a season then goes out of print. I'd rather play something that has some staying power. It's easier to find other players for it at conventions or online for games or discussion. And that staying power generally requires maintenance on someone's part.

 

[frogimus]

It's trickier than even that.

WotC is first and foremost the Magic: the Gathering company. It was the game that put them on the map and makes them a bajillion dollars every quarter (rounded up to the nearest bajillion). And MtG is a very cyclical game. You release an annual starter set and then expansions every few months, and never, every have to look backwards. Old sets just cease to exist.

On top of that, WotC keeps the Magic train barreling down the tracks with their competitive play network AND their release events (which bring in the non-network players). These don't quite work with RPG, at least in the way WotC likely desires.

 

[Argyle King]

Important to me personally? Yes.


Important? That's debatable. If 6th Edition were announced 3-4 years from now, I believe there would be people who would buy the new product "sight unseen."

 

[DEFCON 1]

We already know it was a big mistake of WotC to abandon support of 3.5 edition and release a brand new 4th edition instead of some kind of 3.75 edition.

In HINDSIGHT. Which is ridiculous to hold up as an example. We can't look at the situation *now* and say that they should have known at the time that these results were going to happen. Nobody could know what the results of moving onto 4E were going to be. All that could be known was that when WotC did an "evolution" edition of 3.5, it resulted in some good additional core book sales but also some hard feelings on the part of some of the playerbase. WotC doing another "evolution" edition to 3.75 at the time was probably going to be seen mostly as a money-grab rather than a gaming necessity. So at the time... it probably was not looked upon as a potentially good idea.

Castles & Crusades exploits from long-term support of old-school, Fate exploits from long-term support of the game as well.

And neither of these games sell in anywhere close to the same numbers that D&D does. So who gives a darn if they are supporting old game systems? Am I to be lauded if I was to write and sell books that were in support of 1st Edition Paranoia? Especially if those sales are nothing more than being in the hundreds if I was lucky?

Sure... the Fudge system was published in 1992. But are we really supposed to think that Evil Hat should get points because their Fate Core rules used it as a chassis twenty years later? Great... they're "supporting" old-school Fudge. Yippy! Good for them! And what does that gain anyone? Not much if anything so far as I can tell.

Nope, sorry... Evil Hat only gets points from me because they wrote a very excellent game in and of itself. In support of nothing but the game they themselves just put out. The fact that it's plying on the designs of mechanics from game ages past means nothing to me. I mean after all... if Fate Core sucked I wouldn't treat it any better just because they were "supporting" old-school Fudge by adapting those old mechanics. No... if the game isn't good, I couldn't care less what their genealogy is.

So, isn't it more important to support the game in long-term than to constantly correct presumable errors of the game in new editions and, in fact, to constantly split the fun base? Isn't it already the main drawback of Next that players suppose the end of the editon in 5 years already, and thus stick with their current game, which would be supported longer? Isn't it the main drawback of the new D&D generally?

Not to my mind. Because I've yet to see anyone ever give any sort of worthwhile description of what "supporting" an edition in the long-term actually is that produces sustainable financial resources for the company doing it (in proportion to their size as a company). What are the products that would be produced right now that would "support" 3.5 while at the same time bring in the best bang for WotC's buck? What are they? I can't think of any. Most any financially worthwhile 3.5 products they had already produced.

And guess what? A rules revision to 3.75 doesn't count... because that isn't supporting the older game. You're still making people buy a new game! You're making people buy a 3.75 and all of your new books and adventures will be based around 3.75. That isn't "support" of 3.5... it's support of 3.75. And it's the same reason why Pathfinder DOESN'T "support" the 3.5 players... because all Pathfinder does is support themselves. Pathfinder products are being made for Pathfinder players to bring in money to Paizo.

Now... can a 3.5 player buy a Pathfinder adventure path and adapts it to their 3.5 game? Absolutely. But that's not SUPPORT. Because anyone can do that with ANYTHING if they wanted to. I can buy an Earthdawn module and adapt it to my 4E game... but I sure as heck aren't going to claim that FASA is "supporting" 4E. But it's only because 3.5 and Pathfinder are similar in mechanics and that it requires less adaptation than other games that some people might claim it's "support". But that's ridiculous and only an attempt by those 3.5 players to feel better about their situation. Because I don't recall many if any AD&D players feeling like 2E was "supporting" AD&D because they could take 2E modules or products and adapt them to their own game if they wanted to. Nope. They felt "abandoned" just like 2E players felt "abandoned", just like 3E and 4E players did and will feel "abandoned".

But that's the way it is. You have a game you enjoy and you want to keep playing. But then a new shiny comes out and everyone flocks to it, leaving you all alone. Guess what? That's just the way it is. And you either accept it and make the journey with everyone else to the new shiny... or you stay with what you want and put in the extra work needed to keep your thing afloat. Find other players like you. Spend time adapting other material. Write your own material.

You don't feel like you're being "supported" as a gamer? Guess what?

The only person who has any need to support you is *you*.

 

[Iosue]

I have no problem with the idea of WotC's original plan of a ".5" edition after 5 years and a new edition after 10. I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to the RPG publishing game. Just don't make a whole new freakin' game every edition. Maintain some continuity. Someone who bought B2 in 1978 with Holmes Basic could go on to use it with AD&D in 1979, Moldvay Basic in 1981, Menzter Basic in 1983, and AD&D 2nd Edition in 1989. D&D had continuity for 20 years. D&D was distinct from AD&D which was distinct from 2nd Edition, and yet they were essentially the same game. Then WotC takes over and 3e is suddenly not compatible with 2e. 4e comes out and it's not compatible with 3e. 5e comes out (and I like 5e), and sure enough it's not compatible with 4e.

Time was, the differences between 3e and 3.5, and beween 3.5 and Pathfinder would be enough to call it a new edition. Now no one wants to do that -- it's 3e/3.5/3.75. It's a reasoned argument to say, "Essentials is entirely compatible with 4e, so it's not a new edition." It's essentially the same material edited into a new format! Of course it's a new edition. That's what an edition is.

So, 5 years down the line, if WotC comes out with 5e Revised! or 6th Edition, or whatever, I'm going to ask some simple questions. Are the new adventures compatible with my 5e rulebooks? Or can I still use my old adventures if I get the new rulebooks? Can I mix and match material from either edition without whole sections being invalidated or needing overhaul? Can I use the new books in my continuing campaign without missing a step? If the answer to these questions is "Yes," then I don't care if WotC decides its time for an influx of Core Book Cash. I'll buy new core rulebooks if I feel I need or want to. Or I'll keep my old books and buy new adventures or sourcebooks. Let ze game remain ze same and mean it this time!

If the new edition requires wholesale recreating of characters or campaign to fit with entirely new rules, then screw it. I'll just play B/X or 5e, and never need to buy anything else. Because in the end, that's what RPGs are: games. Games you can buy once and never need to replace.

 

[Hussar]

The only way I can see D&D going more than 5 years without a new edition being published is if Hasbro pull the plug and a new edition is never published. (Even if someone picks up a license, I expect the very first thing they'll do is a new edition.)



Nitpick: 1st Ed was completed in 1979 with the release of the DMG, and 2nd Ed released in 1989 - exactly those 10 years. Although there was a new set of core rulebooks in that time, the "orange spine" versions were simply a matter of new covers - the interior contents were unchanged (apart from errata). Likewise, 2nd Ed released in 1989 and 3e in 2000, giving 11 years, again with a new set of core rulebooks that were just a matter of reprints.

In both cases, there were some "game changer" supplements - UA for 1st and "Player's Options" for 2nd, but in both cases they could quite happily be ignored. It would be like declaring "Book of Nine Swords" to be 3.75e.

Just to pick your nitpick - The Unearthed Arcana was not an option. It was expected to be used and published as such. Subsequent material, such as published modules, referenced UA and would be impossible to play without it.

The AD&D game system is dynamic. It grows and changes and expands. Our universe does all this, and so too the multiverse of this game system.

It's hardly like the system was ever static.

 

[fjw70]

Is long term support good for me or WotC?


For me, no not really once Next is published with all the major rules modules then after that it is all settings, adventures, and rules bloat. The first two are easily enough converted from edition to edition, and the latter I can do without.


For WotC? I don't know. Did switching to 4e make them more or less money than doing a 3.75 revision? I don't know. If they had done a 3.75 in 2008 would they be looking at another revision now anyway? Possibly, but I don't know.

 

[Ahnehnois]

We already know it was a big mistake of WotC to abandon support of 3.5 edition and release a brand new 4th edition instead of some kind of 3.75 edition.

I don't think that's fair. I think we did need a new edition, and it needed to be 4e, not 3.75. We needed substantial revisions. It's not just a question of profit and greed; the system has its problems. It's bloated and filled with sacred cows, the math is strained, and there are a few wrong turns that 3e uniquely took as well.

The issue with 4e is that it took those problems and magnified them to previously unseen levels, discarded much of what was good about previous versions, and that they booted the OGL. And then went off the rails with some other new stuff they added.

The term "4e" has become so charged at this point that it's hard to imagine, but at one time it was up in the air what 4e was going to be, and there's every reason to think that a different game released under that moniker could have created a very different reaction. I think frequent revision is just inevitable. Product lines stagnate, profits dwindle, and the game's flaws start to wear on people. I think the only game that needs long-term support is D&D, period, not any specific edition.

 

[Henry]

Long-term support is important to me, because i'm a customer with disposable income who likes to buy something new every so often, and I don't want a whole new game every two to three years.

It's important to D&D because, like it or not, the majority of players will flock to the newest version more often than not (1e from od&d, 2e from 1e, 3e from 2e, etc.) and maintaining a base strong enough to by enough product for sustainment requires supporting the current edition until sales drop off and can't be quickly reclaimed with new supplements. If i want new players, and i'm not growing them myself, then is tand a better chance of recruiting them from people playing a supported version. There seems to be a perceived stigma that "unsupported = bad pr dead."