D&D General 6e guesses

[Jahydin]

wow, so you hope for it at some time in the unspecified future, but would predict it for 2027 (assuming they are not just there to give credibility to something that doesn’t deserve it). That is odd to me, I place the chance of there being any new edition of D&D in 2027, regardless of direction, at precisely 0.000%

"Hope" was in regards to a more old-school feel.

And that's pretty confident of you, we will see...

 

[mamba]

"Hope" was in regards to a more old-school feel.

And that's pretty confident of you, we will see...

so something new in 2027, that hopefully is more oldschool, got it. I stick by my 0% chance of a new core in 27 but as you said, we will see

 

[Tessarael]

There were a few reason why 4E failed. Two of the key ones from my perspective as a player:

• Insufficient play testing, so excessive errata. It got to the point where I could not make a character using the books.
• Removal of free access to the online platform to create a character with the class abilities with errata.

Correspondingly, from my perspective as a player, a couple of the reasons why 5E D&D has done well is that it has had better play testing, less errata, and the https://5e.tools/ is an outstanding resource when building a character. Now I would also love a good free character builder that has access to the latest errata, and that is coupled with something like 5e.tools, but that's not a (lack of subscription) revenue model that Hasbro will want to support. Good virtual table top support also makes a big difference with 5E - that has been a minor pain point with A5E, and a more significant problem with a RPG like Vampire the Masquerade V5 that just doesn't have a large enough player base for Fantasy Grounds to get a smooth and easier to use implementation of V5.

Mechanically, 4E has some great ideas, like daily, per encounter, and at will powers. It also had much better support for high level play, and the way they handled multi-classing looked decent, though I never really tried it sufficiently to see how well it worked in practice.

So for me, 6E will need a good free access searchable with keywords (both inclusion and exclusion), virtual table top support, and be a solid system without excessive errata. Switching to have some per encounter powers would also mitigate the short rest and nova issues that we have today with 5E D&D. I also would prefer to abandon the long rest Vancian spell memorization/preparation mechanics, and have more classes like Warlock, with most common powers refreshing on a short rest - high level powers or novas being daily is fine.

 

[Clint_L]

4e is a good game. I don't want to get into the pros and cons of 4e, or 5e for that matter, because I think it's besides the point. The issue we are exploring is what is likely to be the direction of D&D in the future, and I only mentioned 4e as an example of what happened the last time WotC brought in a version of the game that made fundamental changes. Which is why I think it is highly likely they mean what they say: slow, iterative evolution of the game, rooted in continutity on DDB, rather than a dramatic edition change to a 6e. The only way I see that happening is if the game's popularity collapses.

 

[Tigris]

Where are we getting this "the first year of 5e was really weak." My recollection of the numbers that we've seen and of interviews with developers is that 5e was strong out of the gate, and accelerated with Critical Role and Stranger Things. I'd like to see some actual numbers.

I follow the link I posted. We know the sales numbers of most 5e years since last year from a presentation by a WotC person.


Mike mearls bragged about "blow expectations" by comparing it with the sales of the 1 year D&D did not release any new product, yes compared to that its good. Compsred to any other D&D edition not.


They were trying hasbro from not taking D&D away from them, thus the narrative of "blowing expectations" and thst was only for the PHB we know overall D&D sales from first 2 years od 5e were really not good.


So dont go by your memory which remembers marketing speak when one has actual numbers.

 

[Zardnaar]

I follow the link I posted. We know the sales numbers of most 5e years since last year from a presentation by a WotC person.


Mike mearls bragged about "blow expectations" by comparing it with the sales of the 1 year D&D did not release any new product, yes compared to that its good. Compsred to any other D&D edition not.


They were trying hasbro from not taking D&D away from them, thus the narrative of "blowing expectations" and thst was only for the PHB we know overall D&D sales from first 2 years od 5e were really not good.


So dont go by your memory which remembers marketing speak when one has actual numbers.

Post the actual numbers then. Hard numbers.

 

[AlViking]

Post the actual numbers then. Hard numbers.

Also post something other than a statement that PF never outsold 4e because that has nothing to do with the sales of 5e.

 

[AlViking]

I had a literal 5 minutes to do some research and found an article from 2017 How Well is 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Selling?. D&D 5e did well from the beginning. In 2016 Mike Mearls of WotC tweeted: “5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime. There was no panic, the game sold well from the beginning.

Oh, and before we hear the inevitable "But Stranger Things!", the tweet from Mr. Mearls was on https://x.com/mikemearls/status/764241988128419840?lang=en was made on Aug 12, 2016 and ST was released on July 15, 2016. I rather doubt that there were hordes of people breaking down game store doors over less than a month in order to boost sales enough to justify the claim - it's doubtful the sales numbers had even been tabulated quickly enough to notice any increase.

Any claims that the release of 5e was not successful are dubious.

 

[TwoSix]

It is also pretty much undisputed that WotC saw 4e, at the time, as a failure, and even debated selling the rights to D&D. Again, I think we have some historians on the site who have the numbers and quotations at their fingertips; I'd love it if some weighed in, rather than we argue about it. Not in the context of which edition was better, or whatever, but so we are clear on their motivations for maintaining 5e as an "evergreen" version of the game that they will slowly evolve.

I agree that WotC is largely disincentivized from pursuing a strategy of innovation over slow evolution. (More's the pity from my perspective, but that's neither here not there.)

I would add only that I doubt WotC's corporate strategy is being dictated by one historical precedent from over a decade ago. That's simply bad planning. The product is different, the market is different, the audience is different, even the cultural zeitgeist is different. Nobody should be extrapolating from 3e->4e or 4e->5e to try and determine a strategy for the late 2020s into the 2030s. It simply isn't relevant anymore.