D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Minigiant]

, yes. That's part and parcel of any business venture. If I can make more money in the bank than selling books, why am I selling books? And, frankly, no matter how you slice it, 4e was not successful. It just wasn't. At best it managed to capture about half(ish) (and possibly less) of the existing player base and never attracted new players in any significant numbers.

So, it lasted about 5 years and died. About par for the course for any previous WotC edition

This is sales. Lines die not because they are bad but because they don't meet the sales expectations given to them. You can be cancelled while in the black.

My job would be a lot less stressful if quality and not sale expectations were what mattered.

But, again, I doubt the "number crunchers" are going to be pushing for any significant changes. Not so long as there is any growth or even if it just remains stable. A stable, evergreen product is

Number crunchers and executives don't push always ideas. They can give ya numbers to reach if they want.

 

[Azzy]

Now, I do agree that 5e's tactical rules are pretty bad. Not going to argue that. But, again, that doesn't make the game unplayable.

Yeah. Some of us don't even play D&D for "tactical combat".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree. I knew nothing of Ravnica or Theros before those settings were released, and they filled a great and fun niche for me ever since. Zendikar is the one I knew about ahead of time, yes (I also knew about Dominaria and Kamigawa from years ago when I played occasionally with a friend who was a big player), but looking through the settings, these 4 settings I mentioned would bring something completely different to the game and could potentially be blockbuster sales.

AFAIK there's no evidence that MtG settings sell better than existing D&D settings re-released, or even, indeed, than entirely new settings. The
MtG settings were the result of an abundance of caution. They have three useful features:

1) They come with a huge amount of high-quality artwork. Artwork in amounts and costs that no non-MtG setting has received, though Ravenloft is close. That's a big saving in a lot of ways, and helpful when you're not sure if something will sell.

2) They are "tested" IPs, so unlikely to be extremely poorly received. Some might receive lukewarm reactions, but they're not likely to be hated - well, not the ones they've tried so far.

3) They cross-market with the huge MtG market. This doesn't seem to have particularly got MtG players into D&D or vice-versa, but it is extra sales of that particular book.

The idea that any but Zendikar would generate "blockbuster" sales seems entirely baseless and fanciful.

The MtG D&D books are just as important to pull D&D players to MtG as they are to pull MtG to D&D.

AFAICT there's zero evidence that this is happening to any significant degree.

I don't think 5e will feel ancient in 2029. I think it'll feel fresh still because they're slowly tinkering with it each year, in the same way Pathfinder slowly drifted from 3.5e without a hard break.

????

Are we talking about the same Pathfinder?

The one which did well from 2009 to 2014 (five years), then started rapidly losing ground gained in the 4E era back to 5E, before popping out an entirely different 2nd edition in 2019? There was absolutely a hard break with 3.5E. It was called Pathfinder. It came out in 2009.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And still: the old ranger will eventually fade out. At some point it is not feasible to reprint it over amd over again.
Now is the best time to plan a soft reboot. At a time when DnD is strong. Soon will be DnD's 50th birthday. You can't let the opportunity pass to make a best of edition of the 5e PHB. This will probably be the goto book for new players. It won't sell like hot candy in the beginning, but will eventually replace the PHB.

 

[Oofta]

And still: the old ranger will eventually fade out. At some point it is not feasible to reprint it over amd over again.
Now is the best time to plan a soft reboot. At a time when DnD is strong. Soon will be DnD's 50th birthday. You can't let the opportunity pass to make a best of edition of the 5e PHB. This will probably be the goto book for new players. It won't sell like hot candy in the beginning, but will eventually replace the PHB.

You're going to do a soft reboot because you personally don't like the default implementation of one class? Even though it apparently works just fine for a lot of people?

 

[Oofta]

I think the wide spread appeal of tactical combat is a myth. Remember the miniatures combat games they released that boiled D&D down to it's core tactical combat? If you do, you're in the minority because it tanked pretty quickly. We got it and played one or two games and then put it up on the shelf of games we don't play.

Simply put - while combat is important to D&D it is not the core of the experience. It adds fun and challenge to the game, but for most people keeping it simple and fairly streamlined is the highest priority. If you want tactical combat games, there are better options out there than D&D. I keep my games fun and interesting because we are not constrained by detailed "tactical" combat rules.

 

[tetrasodium]

But, that does speak to where they could go in the future. There's nothing stopping them from producing a crunch heavy supplement that leans much harder on the crunchy side of combat. Say something like So and So's Theories of Warfare - a book of rules for larger scale combat, tactical combat, vehicle combat, running a military style campaign, and I'm sure a handful of other ideas.

One doesn't need a new edition for that. And, that's largely what they mean by modular. You certainly don't need Xanathar's or Tasha's to run D&D. You don't need any of the supplements really. None of them particularly tie to any other one, and, if they do, the applicable rules are usually reprinted in the other book. Don't want to use the Tasha's stuff? You certainly don't have to. It's not like Storm King's Thunder is impossible to play without it. In fact, none of the modules need any of the supplements.

Now, I do agree that 5e's tactical rules are pretty bad. Not going to argue that. But, again, that doesn't make the game unplayable. It's funny. Back in the day, supplements were not only needed to play - they were actually referenced by other books. Now, you can take or leave a supplement and it doesn't really matter. Don't have Xanathar's? Oh well, guess the downtime rules in the PHB will have to suffice. And, frankly, most of the time, (with some notable recent discussion exceptions) the supplemental rules and the base rules function pretty well. I've almost never had a 5e game grind to a halt because of the rules.

I'm not saying they need a new edition. I've been saying they need to eat their own dog food and start making good on the modularity claims that the overrsimplifications and pruning of the tiles was supposedly done to enable.

All the time and effort they spent talking up the paper thin crunch in back to back tcoe/vrgtr shows that they at least accept that people interested in such things are an important segment of their customer base. Lucy with the football only works so many times before Charlie brown eventually kicks her (I even posted a strip of it earlier). Their refusal to do this in some areas like the quaai-mmortal pc power levels and math not made for the use of feats&magic items even makes it difficult to run content they have released like eberron & to a degree ravenloft as well... 5e PCs are about as sturdy as the holodeck victims in Jason in space before they disabled the safeties keeping them alive.

Edit: doing that takes a willingness to make changes rather than mere additions. If the "perfection" of 5e is too sainted to make that anything but an unconscionable choice or the oversimplification makes it too difficult to accomplish without making a new addition easier then sure. This add only no change approach ihss more in common with a dog's throw only no take than s co.psny actually interested in even considering changes (nodular ones or not)

 

[Parmandur]

Losses? No.

I'm saying growth will slow and setting and rules won't sell as well as previous books of their kind. However the decline will be slow and gradual thus not triggering alarm bells. Especially since the core books will likely still be big sellers.

I don't actual predict 6e for a long time. I am predicting a few books getting a meh from the community as core target group would have homebrewed, brought a DMguild book, or supported a Kickstarter with all those themes in it already.

Greek mythology was pretty well tapped in the years prior to Theros, and it still wold well. With an audience of 50 million, many of them literally children, you overestimate the need for speedy innovation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the wide spread appeal of tactical combat is a myth. Remember the miniatures combat games they released that boiled D&D down to it's core tactical combat? If you do, you're in the minority because it tanked pretty quickly. We got it and played one or two games and then put it up on the shelf of games we don't play.

Simply put - while combat is important to D&D it is not the core of the experience. It adds fun and challenge to the game, but for most people keeping it simple and fairly streamlined is the highest priority. If you want tactical combat games, there are better options out there than D&D. I keep my games fun and interesting because we are not constrained by detailed "tactical" combat rules.

I think this is true but it's missing part of it. The 4E designers thought D&D having "tactical combat" would be a big draw, and whilst my group loved that, it was clear many did not.

Yet 5E attempts to preserve the appearance of tactical combat. Why? Because clearly some people playing D&D like the idea that they're doing "tactical" or "skilled" combat, not what is essentially "narrative" combat or whatever, and I think that's what it would be dangerous to lose. D&D's combat needs to look plausibly like it might be tactical.

I'm actually struggling to think of any RPGs better than 4E D&D for tactical combat. There's a mecha RPG (I forget the name, it's recent) which is pretty much as good as 4E. I can't think of any others better than those two. Games like HERO/Champions and some others are more tactical than 5E, for sure, so I guess if the bar is 5E we have more options.

Going outside RPGs, it's still surprisingly hard to find "co-op" board games where you engage in tactical combat against either enemies controlled by a "DM"-equivalent player or who have pre-programmed behaviour. I would argue that Descent is actually worse as a tactical game than 4E D&D, based on having played both. I haven't played Gloomhaven, maybe that compares?

 

[Parmandur]

AFAICT there's zero evidence that this is happening to any significant degree.

Anecdotally, it worked on me, and Magic is seeing massive, massive growth the last couple years. If anyone has evidence if it is the case, WotC does. Technically, D&D has the larger player base, by a significant degree, it's just not the money sink Magic can be.