RPG Evolution: The Half-Edition Shuffle

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

thehalfeditionshuffle.png

A Historical Model​

D&D has been through several editions in recent memory, but few match the recent transition between two compatible editions. Although backwards compatibility is often promised, it's rarely delivered. And there's also the consideration of the thousands of small press publishers created through the Open Game License movement, which didn't exist before Third Edition. Of all the edition shifts, the 3.0 to 3.5 transition seems closest to what D&D is going through right now, so it's a good place to start this thought experiment.

Compatible, Sort Of​

Fifth Edition's transition to Sixth involves tweaks to the game. Those tweaks seemed largely cosmetic, at first. With the release of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, it's clear that the spellcasting section of monsters is going to be significantly changed. In short, while players may find their characters compatible with the latest edition of D&D, DMs may find their monsters aren't. And that's a problem for publishers. But mechanically, all of these issues can be addressed. What really matters is what customers think. And that's often shaped by branding.

What a Half-Edition Means​

The transition between Third Edition and 3.5 was more significant than many publishers were expecting. You can see a list on RPG Stack Exchange, which shows just how much the new edition changed the game.

This did not go unnoticed by consumers. The OGL movement was still developing but it caught many publishers by surprise, including the company I wrote for at the time, Monkeygod Publishing (they're no longer in business). When we released my hardcover book Frost & Fur, the only identifier was the D20 System logo. Little did we know that it was imperative to identify the book as 3.5-compatible (which it was), because stores wouldn't carry it and consumers wouldn't buy it if it wasn't.

There wasn't nearly as much communication from WIzards of the Coast back then as to how to prepare for the edition change, much less columns from the company explaining their strategy. More communication about the upcoming edition may mitigate its impact on third-party publishers.

Between the DM's Guild and DriveThruRPG, there is now an ecosystem that can more readily update itself without taking up shelf space or clogging up inventory. Digital products can be changed, covers can be rebranded, and newsletters can announce the update. Wizards of the Coast has also given considerable lead time on the coming changes by announcing the edition well in advance and updating books piecemeal so developers can see what changed. But there's still one important piece of the puzzle.

What Do Consumers Think?​

One of the ongoing concerns for supporting publishers of Third Edition was how the Open Game License would be updated and, at least as important, how to identify that compatibility.

Updating the OGL enables publishers to ensure their products are compatible. The OGL doesn't specify stat block structure, so it may not even be necessary to update the license much if at all.

Identifying compatibility will be even more critical. At some point, publishers will start identifying their products as Sixth Edition compatible. And that will happen when consumers shift their spending habits.

The Changeover​

But first, WOTC has to declare that Sixth Edition has officially arrived. Wizards was hesitant to put a number on Fifth Edition, preferring instead to indicate it was simply D&D to potentially head off edition controversy. Failure to do that in a timely fashion (or worse, failure to recognize a new edition at all and continue calling it Fifth Edition) will cause potential confusion in the marketplace, with both consumers and publishers.

At some point the tide will turn and consumers will expect compatibility with the new edition. That change is complicated by the fact that Sixth Edition should be largely compatible with Fifth Edition. But only consumers can decide that for sure; if they don't feel it is, there will be a sharp drop off in Fifth Edition buying habits. For smaller publishers, they'll stay close to the market to determine when that shift is happening and how to transition smoothly without harming their business model.

Getting it right can be lucrative. Getting it wrong can sink a company. The market convulsed massively when 3.5 came out, wiping out publishers and game store stock that were unprepared for the change. Here's hoping with enough foresight and planning, we don't have a repeat of the 3.0 transition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca


log in or register to remove this ad

HammerMan

Legend
Well, the presentation (especially the power color scheme) did remind me of a video game, it does have too many powers, fighters and wizards (and every other pre-Essentials class) are structured almost identically, and you do get back almost all of your powers (says dailies) 5 minutes after every encounter. So there's meat on that bone.
now this is criticize I can agree with... we didn't need 100% identical power structures (It fells like it was the quickest easiest way to do 4e phb1) I honestly think 4e was best (and can be improved) when psionics had lots of at wills and power pts that can bump them up to daily/encounter level but were all based on there base at wills. Fighters (and maybe all martials) having a default encounter buff that can be traded out for more specific and powerful/flavorful abilities like slayer might be best. And even though we didn't see it seeing a 5e style wizard mixed with that (still a bit down played) could make a great 6e.

I do think that the open and honest "x power y times here is what it is for and role" was a good idea but it could be implemented better.

do not mistake me argueing 4e didn't fail for thinking 4e could not be improved... Even loving 4e I don't want 6e to be 4e with advantage/disadvantage... but I do want an evolved improved 4e with some 5e fixes too.
I played and ran 4e for two years before my group decided it wasn't for us. Part of it was the list above, but a larger part was the rules first attitude that insisted that everything happened the way the book says, and you should just make up an explanation for it if the results don't make sense to you. That degree of reskinning is just lazy imo.
and again... I can agree with this criticism, just I think it can be improved (and it could be worked on)
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
now this is criticize I can agree with... we didn't need 100% identical power structures (It fells like it was the quickest easiest way to do 4e phb1) I honestly think 4e was best (and can be improved) when psionics had lots of at wills and power pts that can bump them up to daily/encounter level but were all based on there base at wills. Fighters (and maybe all martials) having a default encounter buff that can be traded out for more specific and powerful/flavorful abilities like slayer might be best. And even though we didn't see it seeing a 5e style wizard mixed with that (still a bit down played) could make a great 6e.

I do think that the open and honest "x power y times here is what it is for and role" was a good idea but it could be implemented better.

do not mistake me argueing 4e didn't fail for thinking 4e could not be improved... Even loving 4e I don't want 6e to be 4e with advantage/disadvantage... but I do want an evolved improved 4e with some 5e fixes too.

and again... I can agree with this criticism, just I think it can be improved (and it could be worked on)
They absolutely could have done better, while still keeping their core principles. But the fact is, by the time they started trying to do this, enough people had been turned off and moved away that the game was no longer capable of meeting those expectations you refer to.
 

Well, the presentation (especially the power color scheme) did remind me of a video game, it does have too many powers, fighters and wizards (and every other pre-Essentials class) are structured almost identically, and you do get back almost all of your powers (says dailies) 5 minutes after every encounter. So there's meat on that bone.

I played and ran 4e for two years before my group decided it wasn't for us. Part of it was the list above, but a larger part was the rules first attitude that insisted that everything happened the way the book says, and you should just make up an explanation for it if the results don't make sense to you. That degree of reskinning is just lazy imo.
Oh yeah, even an imaginary perfect presentation wouldn't make it a runaway success - it's still a very narrow rpg for something called DnD (in that it really wants to be played one specific way, whereas other versions were pretty open to being played lots of different ways) and the people I know who did give it a fair shot generally liked it but rarely loved it. It was a great time to get people to try new rpgs.

I was mostly trying to counter the assertation that presentation wasn't a factor.
 

Oofta

Legend
the conspiracy theory I have been asked not to talk about? You will need to tag a mod and ask them to let me share it... it is mostly circumstantal but I do have some...

or do you mean that it's a meme thing that is not a theory or a conspiracy... just how humans work and I can point to a dozen (accidental or purposeful) uses of the same idea as propaganda.

okay... still not proof. By that metric my gaming group alone (extended through multi games) was about half that and all of us left D&D entirely before 3e ended before 4e was announced and 4e brought us all back (before we split PF/4e)

becuse it wasn't 2nd for a year before the playtest was announced. that is false it fell 2nd 1 quarter that had only 1 book (the last one) for 4e... so it was when 4e stopped competing (or if I were being generous the last time it was given any push)

I didn't ignore that any more then I ignore the same is true or 3e, and 5e, and PF and PF2e (and most likely 2e and 1e)

you are twisting it now... I said many time it was memfication... not 'some cabal'
The Ford F150 is the best selling in the U.S.. Now the only vehicle that is not a pickup/SUV/crossover Ford sells is the Mustang and I expect that to go away in a few years (the Mach E is unrelated IMHO). I don't get it. But I don't blame the downfall of sedans on haters who never drove one or on memes.

I just accept that other people prefer things I don't. No blame, just acceptance. 🤷‍♂️
 

ctorus

Explorer
the claim was that people disliked 4e because of presentation.

there’s no evidence that if 4e had a 3e or 5e style presentation that anyone who disliked it would have liked it.

the fact that no one that disliked 4e is agreeing with you despite for years hearing the theories that their issue was presentation is strong evidence that their core issues go beyond presentation. If your theory held merit you’d have at least convinced some.
Seems to me some people are agreeing, but either way I'm not sure that is strong evidence of anything..

However, while I don't think I specifically made such a claim, I'm sure it is true that many people did dislike 4e's presentation and some of them would have liked it if it had been different. Other people certainly did have genuine issues that went beyond presentation. And still others had no genuine issues, because they never even meaningfully engaged with the game; they were merely picking up on a dumb meme that 4e was somehow not an RPG or not D&D.
 

HammerMan

Legend
They absolutely could have done better, while still keeping their core principles. But the fact is, by the time they started trying to do this, enough people had been turned off and moved away that the game was no longer capable of meeting those expectations you refer to.
but again, being a half edition reshuffle we could see it NOW as 5.5/6/anniversary edition.

the slayer (in 4e) was a fighter that (if I remember) by base was still a fighter with a mark (like 5e samari and sentinel) built in but also added dex mod to damage... then x times per encounter (so in 5e either prof times per day or x times per short rest) they could add an extra W to damage... but, you could take classic powers from 4e (like the big enemy of many come and get it) in place of the X times per encounter...

basically it made something not unlike champion, BUT at level up you could swap out part of champion for something more complex on a 1 on 1 basis.

that is what I would have wished 5e looked like.

now I feel (10ish years after 5e started) that spliting champion and battlemaster into 2 classes may be better... but still keeping a 'build' of battle master that is more complex then champion but still mostly simple, AND a really complex battlemaster build.
 

HammerMan

Legend
The Ford F150 is the best selling in the U.S.. Now the only vehicle that is not a pickup/SUV/crossover Ford sells is the Mustang and I expect that to go away in a few years (the Mach E is unrelated IMHO). I don't get it. But I don't blame the downfall of sedans on haters who never drove one or on memes.

I just accept that other people prefer things I don't. No blame, just acceptance. 🤷‍♂️
I don't know what an F150 is (not a car guy) but i doubt anyone will call the other cars failures... I doubt someone will be at some point be argueing that they 'know' and have the 'facts' that non suv/pickup failed... just that it changed (and I bet it will change again at some point)
 

jayoungr

Legend
Supporter
I notice you single out the pro 4 e not the anti 4e it responded too...
Because the post you responded to was talking about the edition, not making broad generalizations about people who felt one way or another about it. Mostly, I wanted to give you a chance to rephrase in a way that wasn't making personal insinuations about the other side.

However, I'm happy to just drop it and move back to the main topic.
 

but again, being a half edition reshuffle we could see it NOW as 5.5/6/anniversary edition.

the slayer (in 4e) was a fighter that (if I remember) by base was still a fighter with a mark (like 5e samari and sentinel) built in but also added dex mod to damage... then x times per encounter (so in 5e either prof times per day or x times per short rest) they could add an extra W to damage... but, you could take classic powers from 4e (like the big enemy of many come and get it) in place of the X times per encounter...

basically it made something not unlike champion, BUT at level up you could swap out part of champion for something more complex on a 1 on 1 basis.

that is what I would have wished 5e looked like.

now I feel (10ish years after 5e started) that spliting champion and battlemaster into 2 classes may be better... but still keeping a 'build' of battle master that is more complex then champion but still mostly simple, AND a really complex battlemaster build.
Fighter could easily be three classes:

Battlemaster: the skilled warrior (as opposed to the barbarian's passionate warrior or the champion's talented warrior) - superiority dice as a core mechanic, ways to make training sub out for ability scores, and archetypes based on skilled warriors in history and fiction: the samurai, the gladiator, the warlord, the cavalier, the exotic weapons master, the swashbuckler.

Champion; the talented (and simple-to-play) warrior: really strong basic attacks, good defenses (including saves so they're forgiving to play), a few cool ways to use skills, lots of ASIs. I'm not even sure they need subclasses beyond fighting style, although I'd want to avoid even that if possible.

Eldritch Knight: the much-discussed arcane gish class.

Then add a simple blaster caster, possibly stealing some sorcerer lore to get there: you're pyromancer, you burn things. Or a cryomancer or whatever. Warlock comes close but invocations are too much.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top