D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[delericho]

Guardians of the Galaxy just proved this wrong.

I don't think that's quite right.

Marvel have very clearly been following a long-term strategy. Phase 1 was indeed to build on existing name recognition - Iron Man had it by virtue of RDJ's casting, Captain America and Hulk both had it from the characters. (Granted, Thor didn't have it to the same extent.)

That was enough to get them initial interest; what got people coming back was that the quality of those films was very high.

Then, after the monster success of The Avengers, they followed it up with very strong sequels for Thor and Captain America.

By which point, the Marvel name itself had name-recognition. Which they then leveraged for "Guardians of the Galaxy" - which was still a risk, as those characters don't have the name recognition. But it was enough to get people there; and again the good reviews has done wonders for them.

(Incidentally, a parallel can also be seen with the D&D video games - the name was licensed out to Bioware who used that name to draw attention to their game; they also made sure the games were excellent so that they could market their next game as "From the people who brought you..." And of course there's no particular reason Hasbro shouldn't do the same with D&D movies, provided they do get the rights back from Sweetpea. But it does mean following a Marvel-esque strategy, rather than producing the next "Battleship".)

 

[Bluenose]

And that's why D&D doesn't have you roll to hit, it has you make an attack roll.

Armour doesn't make you harder to hit; it makes you harder to hurt.

Well that explains To Hit AC0. Obviously it didn't say To Hit at all. Wonder what THAC0 really stood for?

 

[delericho]

Well that explains To Hit AC0. Obviously it didn't say To Hit at all. Wonder what THAC0 really stood for?

Eh, so they didn't get their terminology 100% consistent throughout. The point still stands: D&D armour makes you harder to hurt. Better armour does a better job of doing that.

I fail to see what's unintuitive about that.

 

[Mercurius]

This is the sort of analysis that I think has very limited explanatory value.

I mean, on this thread alone we have multiple long-time D&D players - @Raith5 , @SteveC , for instance - expressing a degree of doubt over whether 5e is a game they want to play. And there are plenty of other long-time D&D players who post regularly on ENworld who expres similar concerns. But you seem to be discounting that, for whatever reason.

I'm not discounting it at all. I am merely saying that it is my sense that the general climate is far less agitated, far more receptive to 5E than it was to 4E. Of course some folks aren't going to love or even like 5E - there is no way around that. And of course we'll know more in six months how the game is being received by the community, but as things stand now, my sense is that there is more receptivity towards and less hostility around 5E than there was 4E at the same point.

Similarly references to the "Warcrafty" quaities of 4e. That's like referring to the "Diablo-y" qualities of 3E ie basically meaningless. If an issue with 4e was mechanically rationed abilities for martial characters, let's describe it more accurately so we can actually identify the relevant design issues. Or, if the issue with 4e was that powers were laid out in coloured boxes, rather than the traditional black-on-white text of a D&D spell or magic item description, then let's describe it more accurately so we can discuss the relevant layout issue.

First of all, I'm not making a value judgment against 4E - let's be very clear about that. But I am saying that many people who had issues with it felt like it was "Warcrafty." I'm not being specific about design issues because that is not what I'm talking about, interested in debating, and frankly isn't relevant to this thread. I'm talking about how well 5E is being received relative to prior editions, and what the general climates were around each edition, and why they were as they were. It is about perception, in other words.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm getting a very different vibe. What I'm reading is positive - but lukewarm. 4e shot for the moon - and fell to earth. 5e is aiming to hit the ball out of the back garden and will probably succeed. We won't see the deserved debacle from Keep on the Shadowfell being a terrible adventure. But we're not seeing much in any direction.

You very well may be right, although I think you exagerate a bit. 5E is certainly more moderate in its approach, less outwardly radical - certainly no "bold new direction." But I'm not sure if this is as much conservativism of design on their part as it is a kind of learned patience and skillfulness.

Seriously, the line itself stands or falls on the supplements. Which Mearls has said they aren't going for. WotC also risking anything by hiring talent to actually write adventures, instead subcontracting even their most important adventures (their first adventures (including Tyranny of Dragons) being subcontracted to Wolfgang Bauer and Kobold Press). WotC has little enough confidence in D&D's ability to make money from adventures that all they get from the adventures that are going to sell the best for the edition are licensing fees. And the focus on boardgames? That's an accounting trick. Disguising that D&D itself won't be making much money after the initial surge.

All the indications I'm reading right down to the staggered release of the core books indicates that WotC is preparing D&D for mothballs rather than preparing it to be any sort of roaring success. Not that they aren't trying, but the business decisions to me indicate that WotC are minimising risk rather than trying for a big success.

Again, "preparing D&D for mothballs" is a bit hyperbolic. I think they're being patient and perhaps a bit hesitant. They're starting in a place that isn't instantly backing themselves into a corner, that allows them some flexibility of direction. In truth, the basic modular design principle of 5E - at least as stated early on - allows for that sort of flexibility.

What remains to be seen, though, is whether their decision to "minimize risk" prohibits it from being a "big success" - in other words, maybe the two aren't antithetical? I don't think they can passively back into 5E being a big success, but I do think they can take a more skillful, measured approach to it.

 

[SigmaOne]

I always though that Drizzt and Co would make an exciting movie. There's plenty of awesome actin sequences, and I hate to say it but Drizzt despite being perceived as kind of whiny is also a pretty complex character and would make for an a perfectly suitable protagonist. D&D should make an awesome movie, it really, really should. The problem has always been a lack of vision I think.

I was just thinking about this last night... I often put R.A. Salvatore down as something of a hack because of his writing style, but his characters (those I've read at least) are quite deep, and his storylines are great. I'd love to see the Icewind Dale trilogy played out on the screen.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the kind of success you are framing here is unlikely. I simply think the ship has sailed. Gold and silver ages have gone. The world has moved on. A pen-and-paper system is and will forever be a niche product now. The sales curve of 5 may exceed that of 4, perhaps even 3, but it’s an inexorably downward spiral in the long term. One day, an entirely online edition (which, I think, could and should have been the focus of 5) might enjoy a renaissance - and I hope it will - but the traditional format, if we can refer to books as that, will never, ever match the success the game enjoyed in the late seventies and early eighties.

As someone else said in this thread, "golden age" might be the wrong term - especially because, mythologically speaking, there can only ever be one golden age. But a renaissance, a renewal? That is possible with any successful edition. It most certainly occured with 3E.

But of course renaissances are, like anything else, temporary. Although it is perhaps worth mentioning that the European Renaissance was less of an age unto itself, and more of a transition period from the Medieval to Modern worlds. It was a time of innovation, change, and upheaval that saw the end of one age and the birth of another. What was renewed was a quality of culture, art, thinking and philosophy which harkened back to the "golden age" of Greek Antiquity, but of course didn't merely recapitulate it. It did, however, pave the road for the Modern Age.

However, I don’t think the publishers expect otherwise.

Agreed. I don't think Mearls & Co are seriously hoping to capture 20 million and counting D&D players. But I do think they are hoping to (re)create a healthy and vibrant community ala the early 3E era, but this time as part of a larger brand-based network of diversified product.

You can argue the relationship between commercial success and artistic vitality till the cows haven’t just come home, they've emptied your humidor and finished off the Cognac. But a new golden age might not be predicated on sales of 5e books. In fact, I doubt such a thing could be based on sales of any edition now. It might, however, arise from the credibility to be had from an edition that was critically regarded beyond the realm of the fan base of the essential product, a credibility that comes from those who write, “I’m not the target audience for any kind of RPG but this is the high watermark.” That will score you film rights, if it's widespread enough. That will get you an angle that’ll say to Hollywood, “We can sell this mainstream.” And when that happens, you can forget the utterly risible D&D movies of the past and even the inherent cheesiness of D&D per se. Excuse me, we live in an era in which GI Joe and Transformers pull in multi-billion dollar audiences.

I hear you, although am not sure that the success of the RPG has a lot to do with whether or not we'll see a multi-billion dollar D&D movie franchise. That is almost entirely up to whether smart and capable film makers decide to get behind D&D as a film (or TV show) franchise.

Now whether or not what WotC does impacts that is questionable. Are they going to do things that are akin to trying to wave a flag to get the attention of movie execs? Another question we might ask is why has'nt anyone given D&D a shot before in the film and tv industry? (I'm talking recently and with a larger budget).

The film/tv industry is more ripe for a D&D franchise than it ever has been, thanks not only to LotR and Harry Potter, but Game of Thrones and, very soon, Shannara. But again, whether or not a franchise of similar quality is produced for D&D doesn't have a lot to do with the success of the tabletop RPG, I think - unless, of course, we see another boom era ala the 80s, which no one thinks is likely to happen.

Given time and an angle, Hollywood can and does sell us anything and, when they do it well, we love it. Worse ideas than D&D have had their moment in the Sun, and the ramifications of that are tremendous.

Yeah. I'm still surprised at how popular Transformers movies are. Wait, given the "aesthetic sophistication" of the American public, I'm not so surprised after all!

A digitally-based product, complete with virtual table and with a free core, picking up millions of people unencumbered by edition wars and lead miniatures? That’s probably just the tip of the geekberg.

Yup. They actually seem to know what they're doing this time around.

I’ve got news for you. Your better half is a geek. She’s just not a D&D or pen-and-paper gamer geek. I agree though, at least as far as the near future goes; movies are hugely important. But they won’t go into production out of a vacuum either. We need an environment that begs for exploitation. A good edition helps, sure. So does good press and an accommodation of people living in a digital try-it-for-free age, something 5e goes some way to addressing.

Alas, you are wrong - she is no geek, she's just been made to sit through X-Men movies with her husband.

As for the rest, see above.

 

[SigmaOne]

I don't even understand the people who are condemning D&D for not "going in a bold new direction"... 4e proved that to do so opens it up to attacks of "not being D&D" which proved harmful overall to the brand, despite 4e being a very well designed game in its own right.

And while it may not be going in a bold new direction, 5e isn't merely trying to "hit it out of the backyard" either... their goal of creating an edition that is acceptable to most of existing fan base, while being accessible to new players is quite lofty. In fact, many people have said it's just impossible. And maybe to truly realize that goal is impossible, but it can be approached. And I think that they're doing about as well as, or better than, can be expected... again we'll have to wait a few more months to see how things pan out. This could have easily gone terribly wrong, but they spent two years having a discussion with the community, and I think it's paid off.

And while it's not a new direction, there is a lot of boldness in this game. This is as streamlined as I've ever seen D&D since they added the "A" to it. They've come up with many elegant solutions to 3e's issues (adv/dis and concentration, for example) while keeping the "traditional" feel; bold. Dropping Will/For/Ref and Saving Throws completely makes this drastically more accessible to new players; that's bold. New and interesting mechanics for spellcasting all around. This is evolutionary, not revolutionary, but that doesn't mean it isn't bold. The pseudo-Vancian system could have been a flop, but I haven't seen a Wizard player who doesn't prefer it yet. Warlock casting? Bold. Bounded accuracy? They bent the trajectory of the combat system trend in a completely different direction. Bounded accuracy makes the game smoother. But many members of the existing fan-base initially bristled, and some still are because it's not as fine a grained system as 3 or 4e. That took guts to even consider, and more guts to stick with it. There's a lot of boldness in this game.

People only think it is not bold because they've done a pretty good job at what they set out to do: they made it feel like good ol' D&D. They've pulled the wool over your eyes. They gave you a new (and arguably better) game and made you think it was the same old game you've been playing.

Eidt: Tyops

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I'm not discounting it at all. I am merely saying that it is my sense that the general climate is far less agitated, far more receptive to 5E than it was to 4E. Of course some folks aren't going to love or even like 5E - there is no way around that. And of course we'll know more in six months how the game is being received by the community, but as things stand now, my sense is that there is more receptivity towards and less hostility around 5E than there was 4E at the same point.

The climate is definitely less agitated. However my impression is that the main reason is a significant number of people just do not care. One of the big successes of the incredibly long play testing session is that all the people who are not going to like it have self-filtered themselves out. They've tried it, posted for a while, seen updates and then signed out, typically with comments like "seems ok, not for me; good luck guys". So the people left commenting are not the total pool of D&D players, but instead only those who have not already decided it's not for them.

This is me. I tried it, read it, saw what it wanted to do am now really not commenting much. Certainly not willing to take the time out to write a full review. Also, because it really isn't groundbreaking, there's not much to comment on, so for people who are underwhelmed, there is not a lot of point reviewing. The "bad" reviews basically all boil down to "not much there; bounded accuracy seems iffy; advantage/disadvantage is cool but not sure it'll work in practice; i'd play it but see no reason to move away from X"

The last point is the critical one. I would wait for a declaration of success when I hear that significant numbers of PF players will ditch PF for 5e. Until then, my current summary would be "5e has a several good ideas that will need tweaking to work well, but doesn't break enough new ground to bother switching to".

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think that's quite right.

Marvel have very clearly been following a long-term strategy. Phase 1 was indeed to build on existing name recognition - Iron Man had it by virtue of RDJ's casting, Captain America and Hulk both had it from the characters. (Granted, Thor didn't have it to the same extent.)

That was enough to get them initial interest; what got people coming back was that the quality of those films was very high.

Then, after the monster success of The Avengers, they followed it up with very strong sequels for Thor and Captain America.

By which point, the Marvel name itself had name-recognition. Which they then leveraged for "Guardians of the Galaxy" - which was still a risk, as those characters don't have the name recognition. But it was enough to get people there; and again the good reviews has done wonders for them.

(Incidentally, a parallel can also be seen with the D&D video games - the name was licensed out to Bioware who used that name to draw attention to their game; they also made sure the games were excellent so that they could market their next game as "From the people who brought you..." And of course there's no particular reason Hasbro shouldn't do the same with D&D movies, provided they do get the rights back from Sweetpea. But it does mean following a Marvel-esque strategy, rather than producing the next "Battleship".)

This is re-writing of history. Marvels own internal numbers showed what had and did not have wide public recognition before their movies...and so those are the ones they sold (Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and briefly Hulk). Iron Man and Thor had almost zero wider recognition. Hulk did, and Captain America to a lesser extent (though recognition was generally negative to neutral on the later). But Iron Man and Thor were not registering as recognized at all with the wider public. They easily could have gone the way of Howard the Duck or the first Hulk if the movies were not good. They did not go in with the advantage of wide public recognition of the characters. Iron Man had at best recognition of it's actors, not the characters they were playing.

NOW they have wide recognition. But I'd say easily the name Dungeons and Dragons has as much wide recognition as Iron Man and Thor did prior to those two having movies. Indeed, D&D has had stronger audiences for both prior television and prior movies than either Iron Man or Thor did prior to their movies (both had some appearances, but they were all weak and mostly very old).

Guardians proves if it is a good action movie with solid marketing, it will do well even if the public has no idea what the characters are about. It would be wise for them to start with known actors however, but it can be done. Blade had no recognition and did great for Marvel before people trusted Marvel. Who knew Chronicles of Riddick? Shoot, on television Game of Thrones started with only a hardcore small audience but immediately bloomed into a massive audience through word of mouth starting on day one. If it's good, people will see it. It's as simple as that. And they are starting with some recognition for the brand - roughly as much as Iron Man or Thor had prior to Marvel making those movies. Which is a pretty good place to start...better than some successful franchises have had.