D&D 5E Does 5E avoid the overloads of previous editions?

[ForeverSlayer]

Good things in life sometimes get cut short, for a variety of reasons.

I present the Firefly television show as Exhibit A.

The idea that WOTC would not cut off a game that was good has been challenged repeatedly for many years now. It not satisfying whatever internal profit goals they had for the brand, is not the same as it not being a good game in itself.

Can't we just talk about 5e without all the 4e stuff? Please?

Firefly got cut short because the stupid networks showed them out of order. Trying to find other reasons as to why 4th edition was cut short is a futile attempt to ease one's conscious that their favorite game was a smash hit but it was some outside force that killed it.

 

[billd91]

Firefly got cut short because the stupid networks showed them out of order. Trying to find other reasons as to why it was cut short is a futile attempt to ease one's conscious that their favorite game was a smash hit but it was some outside force that killed it.

I think it's safe to say that Firefly got cut short because, despite having a damn fine product, that product was mismanaged by the network to the point of being unable to meet the desires of that network. I think that's not all that controversial nor is it necessary to get snarky about it.

But I think it does illustrate that it's understandable to be skeptical of WotC's ability to manage a good game release and support in light of decisions made around the 4e timeframe (there were a lot of things going on that I think had 4e facing an uphill battle totally independent of 4e's rules). And no matter how good 5e is, it could still fall victim to mistakes WotC might make in managing and marketing it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think it's safe to say that Firefly got cut short because, despite having a damn fine product, that product was mismanaged by the network to the point of being unable to meet the desires of that network. I think that's not all that controversial nor is it necessary to get snarky about it.

But I think it does illustrate that it's understandable to be skeptical of WotC's ability to manage a good game release and support in light of decisions made around the 4e timeframe (there were a lot of things going on that I think had 4e facing an uphill battle totally independent of 4e's rules). And no matter how good 5e is, it could still fall victim to mistakes WotC might make in managing and marketing it.

Sorry, the second comment was directed at 4th edition fans and not Firefly fans.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because the fact is, in and of itself 4E is a really good game. It works exceedingly well for the job it is trying to do. You might not like it as a Dungeons & Dragons game in comparison to other versions of D&D that have been made in the past... but that doesn't automatically mean the game in of itself is "bad". People have been trying to make that claim from the beginning-- "Well, since I don't like it, obviously the game sucks!" but that kind of solipsistic attitude is way too easy for others to ignore and discount.

I agree with this. I'm no fan of 4Ed as an iteration of D&D, but I do like the system overall. I've been thinking about it as a platform for running a M:tG campaign, for instance.

As for the reasons why things get yanked from the market, yes, there are all kinds of reasons why products get yanked, even good ones. One major one is your basic cost benefit analysis- is the investment yielding proper returns? I know of a restaurant chain, for instance, that had a location near me that grossed more than any other in the chain. It also had the highest monthly costs, making it the chain's least profitable location.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I know it might be hard to accept... but you aren't the center of the D&D universe, FS.

Personal attacks, too? Lets not.

Can't we just talk about 5e without all the 4e stuff? Please?

A capital idea. Lets please do this instead.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip > Can't we just talk about 5e without all the 4e stuff? Please?

Clearly, some people prefer not to, while others readily discuss 5e without referencing 4e.

It is like so much else in life. . . .

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] 's hypothesis that D&D wants to dodge this by being a more multimedia brand is pretty spot-on. "Transmedia" is a big part of everything they're doing now, and they've mentioned wanting to go at a slower pace.

Part of me wonders if this D&D e isn't being built to last a bit longer than the 5-8 years that's been typical. I'd love that to be the case.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Just because something works, doesn't mean it's good when it comes to games.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think @Mistwell 's hypothesis that D&D wants to dodge this by being a more multimedia brand is pretty spot-on. "Transmedia" is a big part of everything they're doing now, and they've mentioned wanting to go at a slower pace.

Part of me wonders if this D&D e isn't being built to last a bit longer than the 5-8 years that's been typical. I'd love that to be the case.

I think the problem is WoTc wants to go in one direction while it's fans want to go in another. I think most D&D fans just want a good TTRPG while Wizards wants to take it well beyond that. I guess this is what happens when you have a company that wants to make as much money as possible and fans who just want a good game.

 

[Halivar]

I think the problem is WoTc wants to go in one direction while it's fans want to go in another. I think most D&D fans just want a good TTRPG while Wizards wants to take it well beyond that. I guess this is what happens when you have a company that wants to make as much money as possible and fans who just want a good game.

The ones that want it to go in another direction are gone, and they are not coming back. They're with Pathfinder, for better or for worse. WotC will not win them back, ever, and I don't think it's wise to devote energy to a futile strategy in winning them back.