D&D General Former WotC Employee Greg Bilsland Returning to D&D?

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, I'm aware.

I think it's unlikely actually has a 5-year roadmap at that level of detail (which isn't even a high level, I agree) for 5E 2024, and even if they do, it's wildly unlikely that the new people coming in are going to stick to it. Frankly it's unlikely even if the old team was still there that they'd have stuck to it.

I'm not sure why you doubt it, when they specifically said that they do. Sure, I agree that there will have to be some room for shuffling, or space to cram in a surprise or two, but they've always worked on books approximately two years out. I'd fully expect 2026's books to be pretty far along at this point, even if they haven't announced them.

If, for example, the plan going forward was to continue in the style of the upcoming FR books, but with other settings, you'd easily have five years worth of books at least drawn on a whiteboard. Sure, they might not make it out in the same order, and a few specifics might change, but I don't see why we can't believe them when they say that it is so.

In this case, it doesn't strike me as something that would be worth lying about. I can't see the gain.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not sure why you doubt it, when they specifically said that they do.

Because I've heard this story before at least a dozen times from a dozen different companies, large and small (some much larger than WotC), and in absolutely none of those cases did it turn out that they actually followed a 5-year plan, even when they actually did have one.

In this case, it doesn't strike me as something that would be worth lying about. I can't see the gain.

If it wasn't worth "lying" (your word, not mine) about, you wouldn't be devoting so much time and effort to defending it. Clearly this putative plan has some kind of significant value to you, not least in claiming it would be followed.

Also, I'm not saying they're "lying", I'm saying I think it's unlikely that their vision of "5-year plan" is anything like as detailed or precise as you and others have suggested it is. This is another thing I've seen before. People assuming this is some detailed plan, when it's usually vague-as-hell and barely worthy of the name "plan". And talking about it isn't "lying" it's "hype", which is something related but fundamentally different.

More likely they had and I say had some vague ideas as to where they were going over the next 5 years. More precise ones for the next year or two.

But it's actively silly, imho, to believe that a complete change-out of the people with the most direct influence on D&D is going to result in absolutely no major changes from anything that even was planned. Yet that's exactly what you suggested! That these guys would just be caretakers who'd follow some established plan. To me, at least, that's a laughable idea, based on how these things have gone down historically.

but they've always worked on books approximately two years out. I'd fully expect 2026's books to be pretty far along at this point

Yup, which is why I said I don't think we'll see any real evidence re: the direction of the new people until at least late 2026.

 

[darjr]

WotC followed a five year plan, more or less, after the big shuffle last time.

 

[mamba]

The Beyond platform, full of a decade of first and third party compatible material, seems more than sufficient to dampen the desire for change.

Ultimately it will come down to sales numbers, just like it did for any previous edition. If they drop off, a 6e will appear. It probably won't be as radical a change as 3e -> 4e -> 5e however, to make it easier on DDB.

 

[Staffan]

Because I've heard this story before at least a dozen times from a dozen different companies, large and small (some much larger than WotC), and in absolutely none of those cases did it turn out that they actually followed a 5-year plan, even when they actually did have one.

I remember there being talk from someone at Wizards (might have been Ray Winninger) a few years back which indicated that they start lots of projects and then cull them if they can't get them to work. So it's not inconceivable that they have projects "planned" five years ahead, but that's not the same as the next five being set in stone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I remember there being talk from someone at Wizards (might have been Ray Winninger) a few years back which indicated that they start lots of projects and then cull them if they can't get them to work. So it's not inconceivable that they have projects "planned" five years ahead, but that's not the same as the next five being set in stone.

Yes Ray Winninger was very clear that they often spend 1-2 years working and re-working a product that they're considering, and then ultimately dump it. This is exactly the sort of thing which means 5-year plans are a nonsense in the sense of being something you actually follow. I mean, 2 years in, one of those could reach fruition, and be a huge hit, and if you hadn't got anything else planned, you're what, just going to ignore that for the next three years until the "plan is over"? Hah!

No. You're a business. You'll capitalize. You'll prioritize.

 

[mamba]

2 years in, one of those could reach fruition, and be a huge hit, and if you hadn't got anything else planned, you're what, just going to ignore that for the next three years until the "plan is over"? Hah!

if the development of a product takes around 2 years, you cannot just release the 'next installment' in 6 months, so capitalizing on anything is not that easy

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Beyond platform, full of a decade of first and third party compatible material, seems more than sufficient to dampen the desire for change.

DDB would be a reason to stick with thing as they are, I agree... but my own instinctual feeling is that because it's merely just a character sheet program really, it has never and would not ever reach the heights of usage across the globe that would make the reprogramming of the system too much of an hassle. At the end of the day... I think it'll be easier for players to nope out of it when they grow truly bored of the 5E engine than they would have if they were using a complete and feature-full Project Sigil-- with all the bits and bobs of animations and digital character/monster minis and visualized mechanics.

I mean we saw it with D&D Insider... those were fantastic character and monster builder programs but they weren't enough to keep 4E floating above the water line. And if 5E wains... tossing out DDB altogether or retrofitting the program to work with whatever the 6E game would be is not beyond the realm of possibility. But like others have said... we still have a good 5 years of 5E24 at least before the thoughts of 6E and the beginnings of work on it would start up. And who knows where things will stand at that point in time? Way too early to guess.

 

[Staffan]

Yes Ray Winninger was very clear that they often spend 1-2 years working and re-working a product that they're considering, and then ultimately dump it. This is exactly the sort of thing which means 5-year plans are a nonsense in the sense of being something you actually follow. I mean, 2 years in, one of those could reach fruition, and be a huge hit, and if you hadn't got anything else planned, you're what, just going to ignore that for the next three years until the "plan is over"? Hah!

No. You're a business. You'll capitalize. You'll prioritize.

Sure, but it might also mean that they start working on stuff about 5 years before they plan to release it, in order to make sure there's something to release. And that in turn means that it might take a while before having new people in charge actually leads to any changes in direction.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't expect a "6E" per se ever again: more 5E iterations periodically, maybe.

This, the basic structure of D&D is now locked into code on D&DBeyond. Unless they want to restructure the code to become system agnostic (which may be a good idea).