D&D 5E (2014) 5E: Planning to Last?

[mkill]

I think they'll adopt the Google Chrome update model and just throw out a new version every 6 months.

 

[Stormonu]

I am of two minds.

1E was an unindexed nightmare. It was a fairly good system, but it lacked organizational skills. I was glad to see it evolve into 2E when it did.

2E was held onto for too long without much change; I know many people (including myself) who drifted away from it because it felt "old fashioned". To me, 2E felt like it was trying too desperately to hang onto the "old ways" when more modern roleplaying games, such as VtM and GURPs had "seen the light".

3E felt like it ended too early; For me, it was just hitting its stride when it got cut off at the knees. I was glad to see it cleaned up and continued with Pathfinder.

No comment on 4E, I think that's for the best - and it is still alive at this time (though, with book support as it is, seemingly on life support).

Overall, I hope that 5E can hang in for a while, but I don't want it to become inflexible like 2E did; I'd like for the design space to continue to move forward, but without forsaking its history. Mechanics can change and modernize as designers find better or more intuitive ways to do things, but the history and the worlds of the game should endure.

 

[Stalker0]

the online subscription model is the only thing that could change the inevitable short life-span of editions... wotc won't have to cram more splat into the game (i.e. publish a new book every month) until its unplayable if they can just get subscription $'s every month from everyone who plays

I agree here.

The key to beating bloat is to move your business model away from game content towards game tools.

At some point, almost everyone has enough content for their game. But if I have tools that help me build characters, run a combat, generate quick stats, provide random loot, help with me chase scenes, etc etc those are things I can use indefinitely.

And if they are bundled into a monthly membership (which is 4e's model), then I provide recurring income to WOTC and it lasts....as long as I keep playing the edition.


WOTC has started the model with 4e, and I think they will continue to go farther with 5th. If they do it right, then in theory they could create edition immortality, or at least increased longevity.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's a matter of perspective, too. We're used to the idea of D&D being a system with constant development and a regular supply of new supplements. But we don't expect the same from Scrabble. There is no reason why D&D couldn't eventually become a "finished" product intended to be sold as-is perennially.

That won't happen in the foreseeable future, but I suspect that we will see a more reserved approach to additional content this time around.

 

[MacMathan]

If they can go a solid 5 years I will be alright with it. In a fantasy world I would love 10 years without major revisions but that seems unlikely given the DnD history of this century.

I agree that they need to generate a monthly revenue stream through subscription services, it could really help longevity financially

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am not a DDIite, but I think they need to do DDI or something for 5E as it would really help their revenue stream. I would like to see less crunch and a lot more fluff there, though.

But if they did it like now it would not bother me much.

As for longetivity, they need to do more campaign settings, either full-bore ones, or limited run ones like they are experimenting with in 4E right now.

Neverwinter was an awesome book, and very clsoe to system neutral.

Mezzolbarden (sp?) seems like it will be the same, as with the new FR book this winter.

That is the way to keep the dollars rolling in and keep bloat down.

 

[delericho]

I think they should target 5 years, and in fact should lay out the product plan for those 5 years, building in scope for another 2-3 years more stuff if it proves wildly popular.

The way I would do it would be to first publish the core of the game, then publish an "Expanded Core" bringing back anything that didn't make the cut (including, notably, controversial elements like Dragonborn). That, plus support of Modules, Forgotten Realms support, and adventures, should give enough material for a couple of years.

Then do the Splatbooks, dividing them thematically, and expanding the classes in both the Core and the Expanded Core. By deferring these a few years, they give themselves the opportunity to give the line a shot in the arm as it starts to flag.

Again, the Splatbooks, additional Monster Manuals, support of a second setting, and more adventures should between them provide enough products for another couple of years.

And once you move beyond that, it's not unreasonable to start doing more experimental material - the 5e equivalent of "Book of 9 Swords", or whatever. But at that point, they're likely to be looking towards 6e anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

I imagine they are thinking quite a bit about it.

The fundamental problem of D&D from a business perspective is that the more you (the customer) get into the game, the more time you spend on it, and the better you are at it, the less money you are likely to spend on it.

Also, the better the quality of product that is out there, the more it will stand the test of time, and the less likely anyone who owns it is to buy a new version.

I don't know that anyone will ever be able to change those things, which is why the game will always be tough to make money with.

Sound like the (far) future of D&D might be Open Source.

 

[Yora]

Indeed, but it won't be called D&D anymore.

The main problem is the business model. I don't think you can make money of a game system for an extended time. Either people get all the books they need and stop buying rulebooks, or there is an endless stream of unneccesary rulebooks causing rules bloat that eventually makes the game unplayable.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, I think the problem with a short cycle is that people don't always move on. So you get fewer and fewer people, especially now when you can stay with older versions and still get pretty decent product support.

So while you get a spike in sales every 5 years, that spike will likely dwindle, putting D&D in the death spiral it seems to be in now.

I think they simply need to figure out how to get more revenue than just from re-selling rulebooks over and over.

Can they figure out how to make money on adventures? Paizo seems to. And is the problem with splatbooks just rules bloat, or the inevitable power creep that seems to happen with them. Why not say, parallel rulebooks, going sideways instead of building on the existing ones.

You sort of saw this during the d20 era - lots of alternative PHBs for different settings and such. Rather than making existing classes better, it just offered different stuff. Would that work long term? Who knows?

But I think the real problem is that RPGs just aren't big enough to generate the sort of profit Hasbro expects.