D&D 5E D&D Head Talks Future Plans (Sort Of)

WotC has launched a new design blog. The first edition is written by D&D head Ray Winninger, and he talks a little about future plans.

"Later in the year, Chris will return with our big summer adventure, James Wyatt will deliver a substantially improved version of a concept that I initiated myself, and Amanda Hamon will close us out with a project that was jointly conceived by herself and several other studio members. As usual, Jeremy Crawford is working with all of our leads, overseeing mechanical content and rules development.

In addition to these five major products, look for a couple of additional surprises we’ll unveil in the months ahead."

You can read the full blog here:

Who We Are & What We Do | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

The first of many design blogs, direct from your friends at the Dungeons & Dragons Studio!

dnd.wizards.com

He also mentions that a D&D book takes 12-14 months to make, and half the projects developed don't make it to market. Winninger describes the structure of WotC's 'D&D Studio':

"The D&D Studio itself is organized into four departments: Game Design, Art, Production, and Product Management, each led by a department head. Game Design is responsible for the developing game mechanics and stories. Art establishes the “look and feel” of Dungeons & Dragons by creating visual concepts, directing our freelance illustrators, and creating innovative graphic designs. The Production department manages our project schedules, interfaces with manufacturing experts, and generally handles administrative matters for the studio. The Product Management department interfaces with sales, marketing, and market research. They also own our long-term product roadmap and look after the D&D business."

The studio has five Product Leads: Jeremy Crawford, Amanda Hamon, Chris Perkins, Wes Schneider, and James Wyatt.

 

[Ancalagon]

. No player should accept a DM saying no to Psionics just because of misguided feelings of Psionics from previous editions.

Listen. DMing is a lot of work. A LOT MORE than playing. In exchange for for all this work, the DM gets more decision power over the nature of the game.

I looked at the Echo Knight. I really don't like it. I wouldn't allow it in my games. Am I wrong about the Echo Knight being "bad" (I don't mean not powerful)? Quite possibly! But as a GM, I have the right to say "I don't want X" in my games. If you don't like it, you don't have to play in my game. That's your big power as a player.

People say that DM "excluding things" is bad, but EVERY campaign excludes a MASSSIVE AMOUNT of stuff. Just by picking one system and one "genre/era" of gaming (fantasy vs western vs spy game vs hard sci-fi vs space opera vs...) you've excluded so much.

 

[cmad1977]

Maybe if the designer for 4e's intended integrated VTT and other digital tools didn't commit a murder-suicide and thus making 4e have to launch without its digital support, 4e might have had more success.

If 4e NEEDED digital aids to succeed…. It wasn’t well done.

 

[Ancalagon]

Unpopular opinion: I really dislike Wayne Reynolds's (is s's correct?) art style. It hurts me his art is so proeminent in my favourite setting's inception.

I do like his art, but I find there too much of it!

 

[cmad1977]

Absolutely! I mean, the podcast 3 Black Halflings did start because one of the hosts couldn't find any art for black halflings!

Great podcast btw. Very smart.

 

[Bolares]

If 4e NEEDED digital aids to succeed…. It wasn’t well done.

4e was many things.... poorly done was not one of them

 

[pukunui]

Unpopular opinion: I really dislike Wayne Reynolds's (is s's correct?) art style. It hurts me his art is so proeminent in my favourite setting's inception.

Not a fan of WAR’s art. The unnaturally contorted poses are what really stand out to me.

I am also not a fan of William O’Connor’s art, which featured quite prominently in 4e books.

Aside from the halflings with the too tiny feet, I much prefer 5e art overall. It takes me back to the Larry Elmore, Clyde Caldwell et al art of my youth more than most of the 3e and 4e art did.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not a fan of WAR’s art. The unnaturally contorted poses are what really stand out to me.

I am also not a fan of William O’Connor’s art, which featured quite prominently in 4e books.

Aside from the halflings with the too tiny feet, I much prefer 5e art overall. It takes me back to the Larry Elmore, Clyde Caldwell et al art of my youth more than most of the 3e and 4e art did.

I think it's a "cost/risk" when several artists do the art vs 1-2 - the art style is less unified, and you are probably going to get a few stinkers... but on the other hand, the odds of you getting a few great ones are much higher too.

When I was 13, this was... perfection

 

[Laurefindel]

I like WAR’s art. It was something new with a strong artistic signature, like diTerlizzi was 10 years before him. Everything is over the top, including the sexiness/impracticablity of adventurers’ clothing, but consistently so. And like it or not, it was well-executed.

as for the representation of diversity in D&D (and fantasy in general), I think it’s an era thing more than an edition thing. 5e has more diverse representation because it’s newer, and 4e was more diverse than 3e because it came after. We’re slowly but progressively becoming better at it. 6e will be better still, regardless of its system

 

[Ancalagon]

And like it or not, it was well-executed.

... except feet. WAR has a hard time with those.

 

[Bolares]

I don't know how to explain this well in english, but his art has way to many angles and straight lines for me... It is supposed to represent action, but to me it's just robotic