D&D 5E The Last Edition of D&D?

Changes in Dungeons & Dragons' various editions have ranged from the incremental to the epic, shaking up the game's sales along with its playerbase. There is evidence that Wizards of the Coast is following a new model in which there are no more editions, just updates and backwards compatibility. It's a model long touted by the software industry, and for an idea what the future might hold we can look to the future of video game consoles.

Picture courtesy of Unsplash.​

Edition History​

To put Fifth Edition's longevity in perspective, it's worth looking back at the lifespan of the earlier editions. These editions lived long after the debut of later editions (and will live on in perpetuity on the Internet):

[EDIT: Alzrius did a much better job of summarizing editions, so I've replaced my timeline with his here, thanks Alzrius!)

• Original Dungeons & Dragons: 1974 (woodgrain boxed set) through 1976 (Swords & Spells) - 2 years
• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition): 1977-1979 (depending on whether you could it as beginning with the release of the Monster Manual in 1977, the Players Handbook in 1978, or the Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979) through 1988 (DL16 World of Krynn) - 11 years
• Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition): 1989 (Player's Handbook) through 2000 (Die Vecna Die!) - 11 years
• Basic Dungeons & Dragons (Holmes): 1978 (the Holmes Basic set) through 1979 (B2 The Keep on the Borderlands) - 2 years
• Basic Dungeons & Dragons (B/X): 1981 (the Moldvay Basic Set to 1983 (X5 Temple of Death) - 2 years
• Basic Dungeons & Dragons (BECMI): 1983 (the Mentzer Basic Set to 1993 (Champions of Mystara: Heroes of the Princess Ark) - 10 years
• Dungeons & Dragons (3.0 Edition): 2000 (Player's Handbook) through 2003 (Ghostwalk) - 3 years
• Dungeons & Dragons (3.5 Edition): 2003 (Player's Handbook) through 2008 (City of Stormreach) - 5 years
• Dungeons & Dragons (4th Edition): 2008 (Player's Handbook) through 2012 (Into the Unknown: The Dungeons Survival Handbook) - 4 years
• Dungeons & Dragons (4th Edition Essentials): 2010 (Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set) through 2011 (Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale) - 1 year
• Dungeons & Dragons (Next): 2013 (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle through 2014 (Legacy of the Crystal Shard) - 1 year
• Dungeons & Dragons (5th Edition): 2014 (Starter Set) through Present (Mythic Odysseys of Theros) - 6 years+

Looking at these averages, the lifespan of an edition ranges from as low as a few years to as long as 11 years. At 6 years old, Fifth Edition is now at the beginning of when it might be considered old enough to warrant a new edition—Fourth Edition lasted just four years (if we count Essentials).

No More Editions?​

Mike Mearls had this to say about a hypothetical sixth edition:

We’re nowhere near 6th edition D&D, but if we get there this is how I’d like it to play out. Zero disruption to what you’re already doing, just new toys to make your game better.

In an Ask Me Anything on Reddit, Mearls clarified in response to a question about modeling D&D's roll-out after Microsoft's roll-out of Windows 10:

Is the goal of 5e to get all D&D players onto one edition and then to support it for a long time, much like what Microsoft is doing with Windows 10? Should we expect 5e to last longer than the 5-6 year lifespan of the previous several editions?
I think we'd do a new edition only when the warts of the current one are bothersome enough that people want them excised.

The much-touted Microsoft model, itself inspired by the iPhone model, comes up frequently because it minimizes disruption to consumers while ensuring they still benefit from systemic improvements. And there's a good reason for customers and developers looking for another way: A platform change can be devastating to a game's market.

Damaged Edition​

As D&D has become more embedded in the Internet ecosystem, it has become increasingly difficult for it to pivot. The Open Game License (OGL) era ushered in by Third Edition, in which many third parties flourished in support of the new game, came to a hard stop with the debut of Fourth Edition. Two planned hardcover supplements I wrote never saw the light of day because the rumors of a new edition spooked the publisher from producing new material. The hint of a new edition was enough to make third party developers change their tactics, and for good reason.

The current D&D ecosystem has only grown larger thanks to the new OGL and the DMs Guild. All the video streamers who are currently buoying interest in the game, the D&D-related Kickstarters launched every week, and market expectations for the brand’s IP as a transmedia franchise suggests that the investment in D&D goes beyond customers and includes small business owners too.

Before a new edition comes out, the existing edition takes a hit: D&D gradually lost market share to Pathfinder, dipping to third place according to ICv2 in 2012 (when Fifth Edition was announced). The drop was not solely attributable to D&D's edition change of course. The issues with Fourth Edition and Pathfinder's popularity certainly had something to do with the shift in positions, but it seems likely the steep drop to third place was accelerated by the edition announcement. We have further data that bears this out in Pathfinder's Second Edition launch, in which Pathfinder First Edition slipped to fifth place in Spring 2019, just before the Summer launch of the new edition.

There's a parallel between an edition of a tabletop game and a video game console, which can have limited backwards compatibility with the games before it. Like the tabletop game industry, the video game industry convulses every six to eight years when a major game development platform (Xbox and Playstation) announces a new system. Developers change their schedules to accommodate and gamers stop buying the current platform as they wait for the new one to debut. This cycle grinds sales of video games to a halt; it can be so devastating that the current down cycle threatens to wipe out GameStop, one of the few remaining brick-and-mortar video game resellers in the United States (GameStop's desperation was on full display during the pandemic).

Something Has to Give​

Increasingly, publishers are realizing that although this model produces an uptick in sales and expenditures in the short-term, it's damaging to the wider gaming ecosystem. This is why console producers are moving away from the existing model to one in which continual upgrades are possible while still guaranteeing backwards compatibility. They do this by building in compatibility from the start so that the console can easily run older games, while at the same time releasing more powerful products that consumers can opt-into as they see fit. In a similar fashion, one of Fifth Edition's goals was to be backwards compatible with the editions that came before it.

A longer market window to sell D&D has had some interesting side-effects, most notably that it creates an opportunity for luxury, high-end products. These products wouldn’t be able to flourish in a market where a potential high-end consumer would balk at investing a significant amount of money on something that wouldn’t compatible in a year.

There’s also signs that the old model no longer makes sense. D&D’s older editions never went away—Pathfinder’s success is an important reminder of this fact—and any new edition would have to compete with the five editions before it for digital attention. In the video game industry, downloadable content allows games and platforms to incorporate feedback and update themselves in real time—just like D&D is now doing with its Unearthed Arcana content and surveys.

Will we ever get a new edition of D&D? With Ray Winniger replacing Mearls as head of the D&D team, there may well be a declaration of a Sixth Edition in the near term, but it seems the game will always be backwards compatible … in which case an edition change is more a branding update than a radical change in the game’s rules.

 

[prosfilaes]

If you break the years of 3.0 and 3.5, you have to then also break AD&D into the UA years and 2E into the start and Player Option division.

D&D 3.5 was the epitome of a edition change; they reprinted the PHB, DMG and MM for the new edition, plus many of the other books (e.g. Defenders of the Faith was rereleased as Complete Divine). The Player's Option books were not treated as basic books, nor were they expanded on. If the UA was designed to be a new edition, it doesn't seem to be followed up upon; I know of no 1E books depending on it, and 2E forgot about it completely.

D&D 3.5 is a major example of an edition change, because it's notable for not being a major change internally, but being a rerelease of all the main books and many of the secondary ones for the new edition anyway. In that way it was very different from UA and the Player's Option books.

 

[Mercurius]

@Sword of Spirit , as I think I said above, I could see some minor tweaking of monster stats. I've read a fair number of complaints about various monsters--too easy, too simple, too few HP etc--that I think a comprehensive polishing would be in order and not break continuity with previously published material too much.

The DMG could be added to, with more resources like random generators, more info on the planes (assuming MotP comes out beforehand), and of course new art. I could also see the anniversary as an opportunity to re-purpose some of the classic pieces from past editions, like everyone's favorite, "Emirikol the Chaotic."

But, yeah: they play upcoming releases close to the hip, but the nice thing is that we never have to wait more than a few months for that hyped book. I do think they pay attention to community feedback, and even keep an eye on places like ENWorld which, while being significantly older than the broader community (probably by about 20 years), has a lot of experience and a pretty high "gamer IQ."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

@Sword of Spirit , as I think I said above, I could see some minor tweaking of monster stats.

I don't know. I think ever having there be 2 different versions of "orc" or "mature silver dragon" statblock is something they absolutely do not want to happen. And I can see that. I'm on-board enough with the issue of monsters in the MM that I bought a DM's Guild purchase and am considering another to address that--and I'm not big into 3pp. I just think when it comes to this sort of thing, they absolutely don't want to invalidate anyone's core books. And part of the issue with that is that later books actually made monsters that were more interesting than the MM. So it's not that all monsters need redone, it's just the MM ones. That makes it's difficult for them to come up with a solution that doesn't replace them.

What they might do--and in fact, this is probably the best option--is come up with more sidebar variants for the monsters in the MM. The variants should give them more action options or otherwise make them more dynamic and interesting. That would actually fill out a lot of pages with valuable content, so it's a win from that perspective. The biggest issue (and this applies equally to the DMG) is that if it's really done well the anniversary versions will probably replace sales of the original versions, and I assume they want to avoid doing that (especially with the higher price pointed needed to make enough content to be worth it). With the PHB, the anniversary version would be an alternate pricier option, not an actual replacement, and the 2014 PHB would still continue to be published. You'd just have three points of entry: free Basic rules, standard PHB (perhaps at a permanently reduced price point), and anniversary PHB for honestly probably $80+ MSRP, but packed full of content.

I could start complaining now about how they won't sell me a pdf so I have to pay for a giant book...but I actually like giant books so my collection (if not my wallet) will be looking forward to it.

...ENWorld which, while being significantly older than the broader community (probably by about 20 years), has a lot of experience and a pretty high "gamer IQ."

Interestingly, some recent numbers seemed to show that ENWorld actually skews a little younger than D&D fans in general.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I see the last editions have got different phases.

• Updating the most selled titles.
• Time to add new things.
• Compilation and getting ready for the next edition because it is too broken and fixing it isn't easy.

* Dark Sun and Ravenloft will be published as settings, because Hasbro know they are franchises with a different style, and this is very important when fandom is too used to warcraft or lots of MMOs. Maybe they are thinking about how to explain new dark domains in the demiplane of the dread but with the level technology of the pulp age. Why? Because a XX-century Ravenloft would be easier to be adapted to some horror action-live movie by Enternaiment One. Maybe the metaplot continues about dark powers tainting other material planes, not only the one of "The Mask of the Red Death".

WotC wants also a new Oriental Adventures/Kara-Tur, or a rehush of Legend of Five Rings because this may be a hook for otakus, fans of manga-anime. I guess they have to talk with Japaneses, South-Koreans and Taiwaneses to avoid stupid controversies about cultural appropiation and things like that.

* The best way to dare to add new ideas to be tested but with lower risk is with videogame adaptations. This means each new videogame would be a 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Ed. but the paper-printed books wouldn't change but to fix erratas.

* 5th Ed is perfect for medieval fantasy, but now the goal should be a d20 system could be used for all genres, even the superheroes, a great potential as portion of market.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

This is a nice summation and I would welcome a change away from "edition thinking." Whereas I was excited about the announcement of 2nd & 3rd edition as they permitted certain inconsistencies to be smoothed out, now that D&D is approaching turning 50 in a few years, I have been concerned for a while about a certain mentality that expects a new edition every few years, as if there is a need to change editions for change's sake. I understand this desire from designers and developers, who are professional iterators, but when an edition change takes place, it sucks up so much creative energy and community attention for years that many wonderful narrative opportunities and ways to grow the imaginary environments are either lost or sidelined.

The announcement of a new edition not only means having to anticipate all of the hassle and community complaints about rule-changes, but then it consigns us to talking about "when will the 6th edition of [blank] come out" for years. I mean, "when will the 5th edition of Dark Sun or Spelljammer come out" still occupies a considerable amount of time and energy in these forums. Heck, for 5th edition, we are still at "when will the psionic options" be released.

I would love to see Wizards of the Coasts devote its energy for years and years of more narratives, world creation, interesting supplements, and so forth (and, gasp, new rpgs). I do not see a need for there to be a new edition every few years, or even every decade. In my opinion, as someone who has been playing D&D since 1980, Wizard's totally nailed it with 5th edition. I read the forums here at ENworld often and read how people are occasionally disgruntled with this subclass or that class or this or that. I read the posts closely and I have yet to find any of the criticisms that resonate with me. The reality is that if one is committed to an iterators mindset (i.e. the perspective of a designer or developer) there will always be a way of looking at the game where it can be improved. The beauty of D&D is that built-into the game is the attitude for the DM to make whatever changes he or she desires.

If a sixth edition becomes the focus, then it is guaranteed that there will be people finding faults with it and pining for 5th edition a few years after the 6th edition's release; in the meantime, the community would have lost a number of years worth of narratives and world-development from the brilliant writers at Wizards. This is my concern with "edition thinking." I would like to see the RPG community adopt a new paradigm when thinking about and discussing its flagship game, D&D.

Also, importantly, as much as I am looking forward to psionic in 5th edition, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and so forth, which I anticipate. I would love to see Wizard's create new role-playing games. Reiterate and support a d20 Modern compatible with D&D, make new crazy role-playing games that let the designers explore their imagination.

There is only one reason to publish another version of the game. Re-sell you the same things. Is a deprecable businness model, but even producing tons and tons of crunch&fluff for years leads to entropy. There is no way out. I mean... what is your readers idea about continuing to make money without new versions?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's a lot of great stuff in the back catalog of D&D . . . but there is also a lot of not-so-great stuff.

The people demand Gargoyle on day one of 6E!

Honestly, I would love it if there were fewer conversions of old material on the DMs Guild. Show me something new, rather than updated splatbook crud from two or three editions ago.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Look at the effects on Kickstarter already.

Fewer overall projects, but the ones on there still seem to be doing fine, no? That speaks more to caution than a bad marketplace.

I've had my suspicions for a long time it's mostly a middle class game for white nerds.

I've got white and brown nerds at my table. The nice thing about the Starter and Essentials boxes is that they're so well done -- and examples of play are so ubiquitous on YouTube and in podcasts -- that no one needs a gatekeeper to bring them into the hobby any more.

I'm sure WotC has a good idea of the demographics of the player base, but you mostly knowing white nerds who play is more about your social circle rather than anything else.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

@Sword of Spirit , as I think I said above, I could see some minor tweaking of monster stats. I've read a fair number of complaints about various monsters--too easy, too simple, too few HP etc--that I think a comprehensive polishing would be in order and not break continuity with previously published material too much.

A backwards compatible way would just be to add "orc swordsman" to "orc," "goblin witchdoctor" to "goblin," and so on, which they're already doing. If there are deficiencies in the Monster Manual, they can be fixed by adding more entries.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fewer overall projects, but the ones on there still seem to be doing fine, no? That speaks more to caution than a bad marketplace.


I've got white and brown nerds at my table. The nice thing about the Starter and Essentials boxes is that they're so well done -- and examples of play are so ubiquitous on YouTube and in podcasts -- that no one needs a gatekeeper to bring them into the hobby any more.

I'm sure WotC has a good idea of the demographics of the player base, but you mostly knowing white nerds who play is more about your social circle rather than anything else.

More if an online thing I've noticed.

I suspect the class thing is more entrenched. More women playing, a but more diversity ethnically but ask what their parents do.

 

[S'mon]

I feel there's room for a super-streamlined (but complete) version of D&D which boils it down to something like The Black Hack or Tiny d6, as a one-off product.

The Essentials Kit is pretty close to that, while being 5e compatible - not sure there's much value in going much simpler for an RPG, though maybe a Dungeon! level "baby's first RPG" would work.