D&D (2024) 6e? Why?

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure about this assertion. Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while.

Actually... while it’s not nearly as common as in D&D, Monopoly has been revised a few times. The speed die from the Mega Edition I linked even got added to the standard edition as an optional rule.

 

[OB1]

Actually... while it’s not nearly as common as in D&D, Monopoly has been revised a few times. The speed die from the Mega Edition I linked even got added to the standard edition as an optional rule.

Exactly my point. You point to one major rule change in 90 years, that's is also optional with the standard edition, and anyone who played in 1935 would still be able to play with a brand new set in 2018 and not have to completely relearn the game.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Monopoly is also significantly less complex than D&D. The entirety of the rules for monopoly would comfortably fit inside the page length of a single class description of 5e. Monopoly also has a fixed objective, strict set of actions, and so on. The only imbalance in the game at all is the turn order. Short of introducing a handicap of some kind for going first (i.e., +$15 starting money for every player who goes before you) there really isn't a way to deal with that.

Furthermore, Hasbro and Parker Brothers before it certainly worked hard at pushing sales with an endless number of special editions and licensed editions to the extent that some people collect the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm not sure about this assertion. Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while. They don't spend money on development, just on marketing and sales. D&D could follow that path, needing only enough sales to new players to cover those costs. As long as they maintained a healthy market share, there would be no reason to create a new edition.

Market share isn't enough, it's about profit and profit margin. If D&D doesn't create enough profit at a large enough margin, then something will need to be changed. This happened in 4E, which did fairly well initially, but failed to meet the unrealistic expectations set by either Hasbro or WotC. TSR had a huge amount of the market share during 2E, but still went bankrupt and had to sell to WotC. These are the unfortunate realities of corporate business.

If sales really drop, it wouldn't mean putting out a new edition, it would mean dropping supplement creation down to 1 every year or three. If it's popularity picked back up, they could go back to three or four per year.

Cutting the total profit to increase the margin isn't enough. While profit margin is important, WotC will need D&D to provide a certain amount of overall profit. If the brand isn't producing a lot of profit, even at a high margin, the opportunity cost will make it not viable. I have heard the concept referred to a "throughput," but I don't believe that is the actual economic term.

If Hasbro wants D&D to be a game played through generations like Monopoly, Risk or Life, they can't keep reinventing it every 5-10 years. And the bottom line is the minor flaws in the current system are vastly outweighed by the ease of use of the system and it's accessibility to casual gamers, who are driving sales year after year after being introduced to the game, having fun playing a Life cleric with a pig and the actor feat and then buying their own PHB.

RPGs are not boardgames, and have different requirements and concerns. Even in boardgames, except the ones that earn the title of "classic" or "gateway game" eventually go out of print and disappear. In boardgaming circles, it's referred to as the "cult of the new," as the new hot games replace the hot games from just a few years ago. Admittedly in the US, most people think of the classic games you mentioned, but that is slowly changing as the general population becomes aware of the boardgame renaissance that's been going on for the last decade.

As for RPGs, they have a shelf life that will eventually expire. This was on display at the end of 2E, which is the only edition I've seen that overstayed its lifespan. Most people like 2E, but were ready for 3E when it came out. It updated a lot of clunky mechanics that were baked into the game (which many people had already houseruled). It added new innovative new mechanics that could not simply be added into 2E, such as the Feat system.

Unfortunately, the trend so far has become shorter life cycles for RPGs, which is a bad thing. OD&D lasted only about 3-4 years or so, but it was a rough system built as the concept of RPGs was formed. 1E lasted 12 years, 2E lasted 11 years, 3E lasted 8 years (of which 5years was 3.5E), and 4E lasted only about 4-5 years. BECMI was the longest lived, going about 23 years, over which time it had 4 different iterations (but only 2 major versions, IIRC). This is the trend I want to see bucked, and 5E is doing a hell of job with it. At almost 4 years old, it has no signs of slowing, and I fully expect it to last another 4 without any edition updates (such as a 5.5E). After that I don't know, but hope that it will be the longest lasting edition other than BECMI.

I could see very minor changes made in the future to the core books. Perhaps a feat added or dropped here or an additional version of a class there. Maybe a "Complete" Players handbook that at some point consolidates all of the class and feat options. But no core rule changes. Nothing that would mean that someone with an original PHB wouldn't have the same mechanics for as someone with a PHB printed in 2030.

And they certainly won't call it 5.x on the cover. Sure us hardcore fans will notice and discuss it, but to the public, it will still just be the D&D PHB. They don't even brand 5e on the cover of the core books now.

Unfortunately, as I said that's not the reality of things. At the very least I'd expect a 5.X version by 2030, which as I said, I would hope to be backwards compatible. You are correct they wouldn't call it 5.X, but perhaps PHB revised or something.

Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books.

I don't think the edition really effects the "brand" concept that much, unless you have a massive shift, like what happened between 3E and 4E that divides the player base. The movie (if it ever happens) won't be tied to an edition, but simply the concept of D&D. Most of the video games they've done have only paid lip service to the rules of any edition of the game. Because of this, I don't think a move to a 6E would significantly hurt the "brand."

Right now 5E is doing great with bringing in new players, which means more core books purchased, and hopefully that continues for a long time. Eventually, however, you will run out of new players buying core rule books, or at least the number will slow enough to become an issue for WotC. Assuming you will always have a huge influx of new players was one of the flawed premises of 4E.

 

[generic]

If you're intentionally shooting for a controversial title...

You have me there.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't think the edition really effects the "brand" concept that much, unless you have a massive shift, like what happened between 3E and 4E that divides the player base. The movie (if it ever happens) won't be tied to an edition, but simply the concept of D&D. Most of the video games they've done have only paid lip service to the rules of any edition of the game. Because of this, I don't think a move to a 6E would significantly hurt the "brand."

Right now 5E is doing great with bringing in new players, which means more core books purchased, and hopefully that continues for a long time. Eventually, however, you will run out of new players buying core rule books, or at least the number will slow enough to become an issue for WotC. Assuming you will always have a huge influx of new players was one of the flawed premises of 4E.

It absolutely does.

D&D has gone mainstream. If people aren't playing it they know people who do. More people are playing D&D than ever, and it's not even close.

The 'player base' of 3e and 4e doesn't matter at all. The new non-hobby gamers massively overshadows that player base.

If they change editions it will sour people on it. The momentum will be killed.

 

[Satyrn]

Exactly my point. You point to one major rule change in 90 years, that's is also optional with the standard edition, and anyone who played in 1935 would still be able to play with a brand new set in 2018 and not have to completely relearn the game.

The last time I played Monopoly, it took me until the third time I landed on the Income Tax square to notice that I didn't have the option to pay 10% of my wealth.

 

[reelo]

What I'd really like to see is not a 6E, but rather a product comparable to BX D&D, but based entirely upon 5E. Kind of like the free basic rules, but trimmed down even more.
4 races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling) 4 classes (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief) with only one archetype, folded right into the class. No feats, No inspiration, no Background, no Hero Points, and all the other intricacies of the system removed.
Then, add aome solid rules for henchmen and retainers, wilderness exploration and hexcrawling, domain-building and DONE.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And the bottom line is the minor flaws in the current system are vastly outweighed by the ease of use of the system and it's accessibility to casual gamers, who are driving sales year after year after being introduced to the game.

Those flaws are not minor, and accessibility to new/casual gamers could be a lot better. What's outwieghing those deep, perennial flaws in the mechanics and the accessibility issues the exacerbate is /acceptability/ to long-time and, especially, returning fans from the fad years.

D&D is in the grip of an over-due come-back, and being genuine to the original (original to the fad years, anyway) has been critical in getting that rolling. Returning or potential new players thinking of trying the somewhat-famous (if for teen suicide & satanism and being irredeemably nerdy) D&D are, afterall, looking to get something of the D&D experience you would have had you tried it 40 years ago.

Well they're coming out with special edition covers, which implies that we won't see a new edition anytime soon. And why would they? The game is booming and from what I gather, a lot more casual fans than in the previous two editions, which were both very crunchy and maybe a bit off-putting for the casual crowd.

I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before & for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&D (and not). 4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM). The system was just much clearer and more consistent.

Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time.

5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible. It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.'

I think at most we see a cleaned up and mildly revised version, something like a 5.1 and 5.2 And even then, we probably won't see it until the 50th anniversary in 2024.

Agreed.

There are numerous ways to appeal to the hardcore fans that don't require a new edition: like settings, epic rules, rules variants, etc. Especially if they're happy with their 3-4 books a year schedule.

Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term. 5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think. We have to make our own excitement. But we're used to that.

I think also 5th edition is based upon having relatively low overhead, with a small group of designers. They are done with the (failed) approach of the past: churn out as much product as possible.

To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done).

I do think they are going for a "quasi-evergreen" edition.

Also agreed. Essentials & 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form & feel (& dysfucntion) of the classic game. Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly. 5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen.

 

[Oofta]

I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before & for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&D (and not). 4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM). The system was just much clearer and more consistent.

Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time.

Not to get into edition wars, but the issue I had with 4E was not with low levels (and I'm an old-school guy). It was higher level play that it just started grinding to a halt and turned me (and my group) off. When a single round can take an hour or more, there's something wrong.

So it wasn't just that it didn't feel like "traditional" D&D or turning off old school players. That was part of it, but it was also that those newbies that grasped the game easily at lower levels all seemed to drop out when we started hitting higher levels. In addition, there was always that persistent, but hard-to-identify aspect of 4E that killed innovation and creativity.

Don't get me wrong, all editions of D&D have warts. But I gave 4E the ol' college try and after running a campaign and playing up to level 30, I would have switched over to a different RPG if 5E hadn't come out.

YMMV of course.