7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Imaro]

The schism happened at launch. It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!". 4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people. Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] brings up a good point, was the rate of new players being brought in by 4e enough to not only make up for the players that were lost at launch but also those who grew dissatisfied with the game and moved onto not only Pathfinder but also other versions of "D&D". Personally I fall into that group... I started out buying the 4e corebooks and even some of the supplemental stuff but as time went on I liked 4e less and less... but I also didn't switch to Pathfinder instead I moved to 13th Age (a game in the same vein of 4e that I and my group enjoyed much more than 4e) and DCC rpg. I think the implications of the fact that the dislike of 4e grew and that there was a definite rise in the number of of various other versions of D&D (most if not all of which are still around with fan bases) outside of just Pathfinder during 4e's lifetime is often overlooked...

But 4e was still going strong. WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them. They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e. So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game. Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.

Which is why they started coming up with the idea for 5e around 2010

Again the interesting question is how many people was that? I would assume it had to be a considerable amount to shape the major design direction of a new edition?

They probably could have stuck with 4e and continued selling books fairly well. But Mearls felt it was more important to have an edition of D&D that would bring back those they had alienated with 4e.

But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?

 

[billd91]

The schism happened at launch. It came out and half the people playing 3.5e at the time said "No way I'm buying that crap!". 4e made up for it by attracting a LOT of new people. Most of the stores I went to were filled with people playing D&D Encounters who had never played D&D before 4e.

But 4e was still going strong. WOTC just got a lot of complaining from people who opted out of 4e or bought only the PHB and then decided the edition wasn't for them. They hung around, constantly complaining that 4e wasn't 3.5e. So, when Mearls was talking about finding a way to heal the schism, he was talking mostly about trying to bring the people who liked 3.5e back into the game. Most of them had switched to Pathfinder but some went to 4e with their friends but weren't entirely enjoying themselves.

Which is why they started coming up with the idea for 5e around 2010.

They probably could have stuck with 4e and continued selling books fairly well. But Mearls felt it was more important to have an edition of D&D that would bring back those they had alienated with 4e.

I really can't see this interpretation fitting the events that we know occurred. If 4e really was doing that well overall, why scrap it in favor of 2 years of R&D and a very different game? 4e may have done quite well in areas you observed, but the people at WotC should have had a broader view of how well their products were doing across the whole market. And they decided that they needed to make a major change. That tells me that, though 4e may have done well with some segments of the market, it was not meeting their goals.

Your interpretation puts a lot of blame on the complainers as if they had some power over Mearls and WotC or some excessive amount of influence. While the criticism may have stung, if the performance of 4e had met their goals, they wouldn't have scrapped further development of it. It's like trying to say the Vietnam War protesters caused the US to end the war. They didn't. They made a lot of noise and caused a lot of consternation, but the real sea change came from a broader decline in support/growth in opposition among the non-protesting public thanks to constant media coverage, over-optimistic statements from the government, and a total lack of any real sense of progress (particularly once the Tet Offensive indicated that the war was far from over). Similarly, I expect WotC shifted strategies not because of some bitter complaints and edition warring, but because of a broader, market-wide inability to meet their needs and goals.

 

[DEFCON 1]

[MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] brings up a good point, was the rate of new players being brought in by 4e enough to not only make up for the players that were lost at launch but also those who grew dissatisfied with the game and moved onto not only Pathfinder but also other versions of "D&D". Personally I fall into that group... I started out buying the 4e corebooks and even some of the supplemental stuff but as time went on I liked 4e less and less... but I also didn't switch to Pathfinder instead I moved to 13th Age (a game in the same vein of 4e that I and my group enjoyed much more than 4e) and DCC rpg. I think the implications of the fact that the dislike of 4e grew and that there was a definite rise in the number of of various other versions of D&D (most if not all of which are still around with fan bases) outside of just Pathfinder during 4e's lifetime is often overlooked...



Again the interesting question is how many people was that? I would assume it had to be a considerable amount to shape the major design direction of a new edition?





But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?

I would presume it was because they saw and knew that the *foundation* of D&D was the same for ALL the editions, and it was oftentimes just the superficial mechanical changes and fluff changes that affected people enough to play or not play the game. I presume they felt they could build a 5E that not only brought back a lot of foundational things that 3E players felt were missing in 4E... but also kept a lot of the foundational things of 4E that those new players enjoyed. I mean... speaking for myself, I absolutely see all the parts of 5E that are directly representational of the 3E design mindset, and all the parts of 5E that are from the 4E mindset-- merged together in a wonderful whole. And I presume they felt that if they did their job correctly, *most* people would see it that way too.

Sure... there will be some players that think 4E begins and ends with AEDU, and since 5E doesn't have that, then the game isn't worth playing. Likewise, there will be some players that think 3E begins and ends with having classes and prestige classes for almost every single character concept out there, and since 5E doesn't have that, then the game isn't worth playing. Throw in powered-down wizards for the 3E crowd, the loss of healing surges for the 4E crowd, etc. etc... some of both sets will still find 5E an inadequate replacement for the edition they prefer. But for the rest of the D&D gaming community (which I presume they think makes up the majority)... those top-level things that are "missing" are not so important as the feeling you get from playing 5E. That feeling that this is D&D in its purest, foundational form.

 

[Wicht]

What is AEDU?

 

[jayoungr]

But why... why was it worth the risk of loosing all these supposed new players that had been gained as well as the hardcore fanbase of 4e... in order to get those lapsed fans back?

My guess: while D&D 4E was growing, Pathfinder was growing faster.

What is AEDU?

The "powers" classifications of D&D 4E. It stands for At-will, Encounter, Daily, Utility.

 

[billd91]

It's part of the lexicon of acronyms that was spawned by 4e.

A = At will
E = Encounter
D = Daily
U = Utility

It's a shorthand for the power structure in 4e.

 

[Remathilis]

It's also French for goodbye, which it was come Essentials.

I see Essentials as the shift back towards pre-4e thinking, but with 4e mechanics in play. The Red Box. "Thief" and "mage" classes. The simple fighters. Elves becoming wizards again. In a lot of ways, Essentials was a signal that a lot of 4e ideas were going to scale back. (Though even I am amazed at how far back they went).

 

[Wicht]

Thus far one of my favoritists things about 5e is that I can understand what people are talking about when they discuss the game.

 

[Iosue]

Personally, I'm suspicious of broad, simple narratives to explain complex systems like the RPG market and the workings of a large company like WotC. And a lot of hindsight-analysis of the interactions of 3e/4e/PF/5e seems to fall in that area.

Each edition change is always driven by multiple factors, such as the state of the industry (both gaming in general and RPGs in particular), the state of the economy, market research, and a messy process of in-house decision making. And it's always an evolving practice. I don't think WotC has ever looked at the sales and said, "Welp, time for a .5!" or "Time for a whole new edition!" Each edition change has been driven by different people, with different goals, and different takes on what the best strategy is. Edition wars, or even what other companies are doing, seem far down the list.

 

[Iosue]

Thus far one of my favoritists things about 5e is that I can understand what people are talking about when they discuss the game.

I started with 1e and B/X D&D, and left the game in the mid-90s. When I came back, I had no idea what the hell what 3e players were talking about. What's a Tier? What's MAD? (It's Multiple Ability-score Dependent.) Oh. Well, what's that? Fighters tripping with chain whips? Wizards firing crossbows? Thieves doing Sneak Attack? CoDZilla? Spot check? Skill ranks? Swift actions? Favored souls? Prestige classes?

Every game is like that, with it's own jargon, plus the jargon made up by the players. I mean, with 5e do you really understand when I say I have a Folk Hero Champion with Shield Mastery? Or a Dragonborn Chainlock?