5E on the horizon?

[_NewbieDM_]

I wrote a speculative article back in february predicting a 2014 launch to tie into the 40th anniversary....

Where’s D&D Going? www. Newbie DM .com

 

[Mercurius]

Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "divide." I think it is being used in different ways, but with three major usages:

1) What people are actually playing, especially on a regular basis.
2) Community dynamics between those into various editions of D&D, and the degree to which there are negative feelings between advocates of different editions.
3) Economics - what people are spending money on.

Going backwards through the three usages, we all know that serious gamers--the type of folks on these forums--are known for buying books that they knowingly will never use. There are probably quite a few people who prefer Pathfinder that still buy major 4E releases and vice versa. Are Pathfinder folks also playing 4E? Maybe, maybe not - but if they are buying 4E then we can say that 4E is doing well. But if a large portion of Pathfinder players are disavowing WotC products, then 4E isn't doing so well.

We also have to take into account the economic climate of the last few years - pretty much the entire life of 4E. I'm not sure if relatively inexpensive luxury items like D&D books have gone down in sales, but I would think that some people are trying to be more frugal. And even if some Pathfinder fans are buying 4E products, and vice versa, I would think that there are quite a few that don't buy products of the other game...but if the existence of Pathfinder hurts 4E, I really don't know.

It is hard to conclude anything on the community thing, or rather it is hard to say how prevalent the negative feelings for different editions are. I work in a small private high school with about 120 students and each year there are about half a dozen to a dozen kids that are playing D&D and over the last three years that I've worked there, it has always been 3.5. This is another anecdote that has no weight in and of itself, but I have asked them why they don't play 4E and I've been surprised at the negative view they had towards it, especially a couple guys who had discovered Pathfinder. I got the usual World of Warcraft remarks, among other "appellations."

I've heard similar stories, so I think there is truth to the idea that there is a community divide, that there are some Pathfinder players that actively dislike 4E and vice versa (personally I don't get it; I prefer 4E but I'd be happy to play Pathfinder or 3.5).

The first usage is simply what people are playing. The more editions that are out there, the more "division" there is in this sense. We all only have so many hours we can game (except the independently wealthy who don't have children or non-gaming spouses!). So in this regard, it is a self-evident fact that when 4E came out and people continued playing 3.5, or went back to 3.5, and/or moved on to Pathfinder, that there was a division in the D&D community.

My personal usage of the term is mainly in that sense - that is, what people are spending their time and attention on, what they are mainly playing. As I said, I would argue that there has never been so many people playing other versions of D&D than the current one. How many people were playing non-3.x versions of D&D between 2000-07? Not a lot. I'm not talking about "Hey, let's play a one-off AD&D game tonight!" but what people are playing on a regular basis.

Divided, fractured, factionalized - whatever you want to call. I maintain that the D&D community has never been this divided, in any usage of the term, and it isn't even close. But again, if we're only talking about people playing lots of different versions but everyone still buying new product, the division isn't a problem. But we're also talking about community tensions and, I would guess, people being a bit more frugal about what they spend their money on, especially given the economic climate.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "divide." I think it is being used in different ways, but with three major usages:

1) What people are actually playing, especially on a regular basis.
2) Community dynamics between those into various editions of D&D, and the degree to which there are negative feelings between advocates of different editions.
3) Economics - what people are spending money on.

Going backwards through the three usages, we all know that serious gamers--the type of folks on these forums--are known for buying books that they knowingly will never use. There are probably quite a few people who prefer Pathfinder that still buy major 4E releases and vice versa. Are Pathfinder folks also playing 4E? Maybe, maybe not - but if they are buying 4E then we can say that 4E is doing well. But if a large portion of Pathfinder players are disavowing WotC products, then 4E isn't doing so well.
(Bold mine - H)

That presumes a size of the Pathfinder community that actually matters as to whether or not 4e is doing well. How many people are playing Pathfinder? Roughly. And, could you please give any sort of supporting evidence for your number?

We also have to take into account the economic climate of the last few years - pretty much the entire life of 4E. I'm not sure if relatively inexpensive luxury items like D&D books have gone down in sales, but I would think that some people are trying to be more frugal. And even if some Pathfinder fans are buying 4E products, and vice versa, I would think that there are quite a few that don't buy products of the other game...but if the existence of Pathfinder hurts 4E, I really don't know.

Something we agree on.

It is hard to conclude anything on the community thing, or rather it is hard to say how prevalent the negative feelings for different editions are. I work in a small private high school with about 120 students and each year there are about half a dozen to a dozen kids that are playing D&D and over the last three years that I've worked there, it has always been 3.5. This is another anecdote that has no weight in and of itself, but I have asked them why they don't play 4E and I've been surprised at the negative view they had towards it, especially a couple guys who had discovered Pathfinder. I got the usual World of Warcraft remarks, among other "appellations."

You admit that your anecdote is just that, an anecdote. How is this relevant?

I've heard similar stories, so I think there is truth to the idea that there is a community divide, that there are some Pathfinder players that actively dislike 4E and vice versa (personally I don't get it; I prefer 4E but I'd be happy to play Pathfinder or 3.5).

That there is a community divide I will 100% agree with. That's obvious.

Now, how big is the divide? You, I and anyone else have no idea. Even BryonD's "educated guess" is no more than reading chicken entrails.

The first usage is simply what people are playing. The more editions that are out there, the more "division" there is in this sense. We all only have so many hours we can game (except the independently wealthy who don't have children or non-gaming spouses!). So in this regard, it is a self-evident fact that when 4E came out and people continued playing 3.5, or went back to 3.5, and/or moved on to Pathfinder, that there was a division in the D&D community.

My personal usage of the term is mainly in that sense - that is, what people are spending their time and attention on, what they are mainly playing. As I said, I would argue that there has never been so many people playing other versions of D&D than the current one. How many people were playing non-3.x versions of D&D between 2000-07? Not a lot. I'm not talking about "Hey, let's play a one-off AD&D game tonight!" but what people are playing on a regular basis.

Again, you presume that groups only play one game. Or even a majority of one game.

Divided, fractured, factionalized - whatever you want to call. I maintain that the D&D community has never been this divided, in any usage of the term, and it isn't even close. But again, if we're only talking about people playing lots of different versions but everyone still buying new product, the division isn't a problem. But we're also talking about community tensions and, I would guess, people being a bit more frugal about what they spend their money on, especially given the economic climate.

Ballocks. The divide between 1e, 2e and Basic/Expert was just as fractious as this. People who absolutely refused to play one or the other and people who were quite happy playing all three (sometimes as the same time ).

I still stand by this. BryonD complains that I'm pointing to post counts as poor examples of how popular a game is. Okay, fine. Find me something better. Find me something, ANYTHING, that isn't some guy who "heard something".

The problem is, some people have repeated the mantra of there being this "huge divide" so often that any counter evidence is summarily dismissed and all supporting evidence is accepted without reservation. It's almost become a point of faith with some people.

Hey, there really might be this massive divide. I don't know. It might actually be that Pathfinder has taken over 50% of the D&D gamers out there and there really is this perfect split with two equal sized communities.

If it's true though, then where are they? I know where to find the 4e community - Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page is a pretty good sign. Where is this massive Pathfinder and 3e community that is equivalently sized?

Where is it? You're the ones making the claims that there is this massive split. Where is your evidence? BryonD simply hand waving it and saying that it's there, but he can't be bothered actually producing any of it doesn't really cut the mustard.

Hey, here's an idea. How many RPGA players are there? How many Pathfinder Society members are there? That at least would give you some idea of the split. You'd think that if the split were as massive as is being suggested, then the RPGA would have crashed hard from its 150 k members that it had as of about 2005 and that Pathfinder Society would be skyrocketing.

 

[Hussar]

Just to add one final point. Well, two points.

1. Mercurius, you could be absolutely right. It's certainly possible that there is this large divide such as you are talking about. I don't deny that at all.

2. I have no real horse in this race. I personally don't care one way or the other.

3. My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball. There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff. What there isn't is any hard facts. BryonD says that I want hard evidence. That's not true. What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

5e can't be coming yet. WotC hasn't denied that they are working on it yet....

The Auld Grump

 

[Mercurius]

Hey Hussar, you will find no disagreement from me with your three points - we're totally on the same page. I don't have the kind of evidence that will satisfy you because I haven't done extensive polling, looked at sales figures, etc - I'm just going on what I perceive. So I would say that my guess isn't as much educated as it is based upon observation and whatever bits and pieces I have put together.

I also have no horse in this race. Actually, I find it a tad frustrating when this sort of conversation devolves into accusations about hating X Edition (e.g. "If you say that 4E isn't doing well then you are a 4Hater"). This, I think, is indicative of the community fracturing.

 

[Dausuul]

I have to admit that I do have a horse in this race; 5E can't come soon enough for me. If the direction of Essentials and the drift of Mike Mearls's articles indicate the design priorities of 5E, I'm greatly looking forward to it. If it were released tomorrow*, I would rush out to buy it with no complaint whatsoever.

Unfortunately, I don't think this attitude is widely shared, which is why I'm not expecting 5E to be announced for a couple of years at least.

[size=-2]*Or later today. Seriously, Wizards, if you have been developing 5E in secret and are waiting for just the right time to announce it, you don't have to wait till tomorrow on account of me. Guys? Guys...? [/size]

 

[catastrophic]

3. My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball. There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff. What there isn't is any hard facts. BryonD says that I want hard evidence. That's not true. What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.

I think you are making a good point, but I feel as if essentials an other features would not have gone the way they did if wotc at least didn't consider this a serious issue.

The mearls articles also point in this direction- they're direct pandering and pr, clearly, but they may also be a genuine attempt to triangulate their audience.

I'm not saying they're right- that there is clear information or a coherent strategy to deal with it. I don't even know if they could gather such information by market research- although that may be far more plausible if, as you argue, the polarization of the community is far less substantial than it sometimes seems.

I'm just saying they clearly believe that it's an issue, and are trying to figure out a way to resolve it while, quite frankly, taking the people who actually buy their books very much for granted. I don't doubt that 5e wil bear the mark of that, although I doubt we'll see it for a few years, anyway.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have to admit that I do have a horse in this race; 5E can't come soon enough for me. If the direction of Essentials and the drift of Mike Mearls's articles indicate the design priorities of 5E, I'm greatly looking forward to it. If it were released tomorrow*, I would rush out to buy it with no complaint whatsoever.

Unfortunately, I don't think this attitude is widely shared, which is why I'm not expecting 5E to be announced for a couple of years at least.

[SIZE=-2]*Or later today. Seriously, Wizards, if you have been developing 5E in secret and are waiting for just the right time to announce it, you don't have to wait till tomorrow on account of me. Guys? Guys...? [/SIZE]

And I probably would not buy it, not from any antipathy for the new edition but more because I am happy with what I have and am not planting another 100 bucks on a new version of D&D. If I am going to spend that kind of money on a new game it would be much more likely to be spent on Warhammer 3e.

 

[amerigoV]

3. My entire point is that all of the "evidence" that people bring up is about as factual as a magic 8 ball. There are loads and loads of anecdotes floating around and lots of "I heard from ..." type stuff. What there isn't is any hard facts. BryonD says that I want hard evidence. That's not true. What I want is any evidence AT ALL that isn't simply anecdotal.

An idea for anyone who cares: perhaps grab some data from either GenCon or Origins. Origins released its offerings in an excel spreadsheet. I presume they have done this for a number of years and perhaps GenCon does as well. If people could patch together enough years, especially if you could get back to 3.0's release, there might be some hard data there. Using some statistical methods, one might see patterns of popularity based on the number of games run over a length of time (3e vs everything else until 4e came out, 3e vs. prior D&D, 4e vs. everyone else in recent year, 4e vs. 3e/pathfinder, etc.). One would have to be very careful to control for the environment - there was a longer period between 2e to 3e then 3e to 4e (IIRC) - that type of environment can skew results (example, I am more likely to buy a new car if my current car is 10 years old vs. 3 years old, all other things equal).

This year was my first full Con experince, so I have no data other than this year's Origins listing. Of course, that is not enough to infer anything.

Con data may not be great as many use that time to try other games. Also, I have no idea if that population is representative of the buying population. But it seems to be a source of data that might actually be available - maybe Origins or GenCon will release the data if asked, or maybe collect from smaller Cons. The data might have some value as people, regardless of experimentation, probably play what they like (for example, I did play some Serenity and 2e amongst my plethera of Savage Worlding - but there was enough SW to fill my plate).