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!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years. I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010. And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.

That's fair. It would have been nice to see what 3pps could have done given an OGL, too. One thing that always made d20 a little balky outside the fantasy genre was the dependence on magical healing, games added things like 'reserves' (a bit like 5e HD, really), 4e's handling of non-magical healing could have been very handy in other genres. That potential stayed mostly unexplored.

But, ultimately, 5e is the face of D&D, and thus, the hobby, now, and this whole tangent started with D&D vs Pathfinder in that context. Which, really, is hardly a 'vs' at all, since Pathfinder is a D&D clone.

 

[Wicht]

Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years. I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010. And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.

I feel for you. I wish that Wizards had made 4e OGL so that you could have the desires of your heart in this regard.

 

[neobolts]

Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I never said it was run in every establishment... but it was run exclusively in FLGS's which is where ICV2 collects the lion's share of their data from for the rankings you keep citing as proof.

Support. It's easier to de-bunk a claim of proof, though, so I can see why you'd keep changing that. Your implication is that somehow Encounters is going to unduly skew things. There's no way of being sure of that. Encounters exists, so did LFR and the Pathfinder society. Bias existed in some FLGSs - one of the 3 in my area wouldn't touch encounters and had lots of listings on Warhorn. There's all kinds of maybes about that data. If you care to discount it entirely, like [MENTION=30170]sailo[/MENTION]r_Moon did, that's your prerogative. Remain unconvinced by some of the rare actual numbers we have to work with.

As the the Pathfinder Society you seem to be selectively choosing the confounding variables you want to address since as I stated before Pathfinder sells directly with both a price reduction and free PDF as incentive. So there is much less reason to buy Paizo product from a LFGS...

Sure, Paizo says they were selling oodles of stuff on their website not counted by Icv2. And, sure, maybe Essentials cannibalized it's own sales with the on-line DDI tools, which were left, likewise, out of Icv2, but - if the wizards community group counter was to be believed - would have added up to millions. But do we have independent data about either of those things?

No.

Or it could show that a few/some/many who had lost interest in 4e swung back around to check essentials out once we heard about what it was...

Yes, exactly. The same data can support a variety of equally valid scenarios.

The funny thing is that when looked at with confirmation bias and incomplete a person can make data support nealy any conclusion they desire. I'll trust in Lisa Stevens, the CEO of Pathfinder stating that Pathfinder overtook D&D months before ICV2 stated Pathfinder

Or you can believe whoever at WotC is crowing about how each new edition is a huge success. Neither of them gave numbers, let alone numbers that could be independently verified.

Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards'). Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.

I know I didn't.



Again we could go back with examples but it would be pointless... so you keep painting fans of 4e in the victim role

I don't see how you can, I one post, claim that calling 3.5 fans fanatics and implying that they rage-quite over a new edition was painting 4e fans as a victim, then turn around and claim that calling 4e fans fantatical, and coming right out and saying they ragequit over essentials /also/ paints them as victims.

Or is "you're painting 4e fans as victims" just a standard, all-purpose come-back?

if that's what floats your boat, it's of little consequence to me how you choose to remember the 4e edition wars.

Yeah apparently no one could force me to have fun with hour+ long combat, short but numerous condition tracking, and flavorless crunch either... *shrug* but now I have 5e and I am having fun... sorry yours didn't take.

I'm having a great time running 5e. I run it very differently than 4e, more seat-of-the-pants snap rulings and filling in the sandbox in front of the players, and using DM fiat to keep everyone involved and relevant - but those are skills any DM who started in the 80s was likely develop, it's nothing special. I find it more fun to run than play, just as I found 3.5 more fun to play than run, and 4e fun from both sides of the screen. Each to his own.

But hour+ combats? Had those in 3.5 all the time. The group I played 3.x with for years averaged 3 combats per 8 hour session in 3.5, and 3 combats per 6 hour session in 4e. The main difference was that players' turns were closer to equal in duration in 4e, while in 3.5 certain players would take /much/ longer turns (a phenomenon that re-surfaced with Essentials and in Next - though, happily, not so badly in 5e as in certain Next packets). Heck, I played Champions! for years - a one hour combat seems fast.

Short-term condition tracking? Yeah, it helped to have chits or rings to mark them, but it was a lot better than sitting out whole fights because you failed one save or having an exciting boss fight reduced to the drama of sawing down a tree.

Flavorless crunch? Flavor in 4e was like rules are now in 5e, you're invited to change 'em as you like.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!

Meh, they also said, when fans complained that 4e was 'too soon' (and, frankly, IMHO, it was) that they weren't planning a new ed for 8-10 years, and absolutely weren't going to do a half-ed. 2 years later, Essentials, 2 years after that, Next was announced.

 

[Kramodlog]

Hey, here's a positive thought. A seven year plan means they aren't planning to do 6e for at least 7+ years!

Yeah, that is true. But so many things can happen in seven years that is seems like a waste of WotC resources. I mean, instead of working on 2022's AP, Perkins could work on the conversion documents.

 

[BryonD]

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.

It came out huge, but Mearls it talking about the issues with lost players in the 2010 article.
It lost a lot of players right away, correct.

I have not seen any evidence that it pulled in that many new players. I know that you can find a lot of people who disliked 3E and like 4E. But in order for your claim to hold water it would have to be a lot more than was lost.
This was highly questionable day 1, even though a ton of people bought it, played it, gave it a fair shot. It was the "new shiny" and all that. It went down from there.

 

[BryonD]

Before even that, I'm afraid. The Edition Wars seemed to kick off shortly after the announcement of the edition, never mind the release.

I recall the announcement rather vividly because I was on vacation that Gencon week.

There was the (predicable) chorus of "gouging" and "too soon".
I was quite happy because a new edition and new ideas sounded great to me. So for about 14 seconds I was a huge 4E defender.

Then conversation started about what the new system would look like. A lot of people started making suggestions and I thought they were crazy.
They were right. (at least about what the plan was)

So yeah, some of the edition wars turned out to even be a bit precognitive.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Yeah, that is true. But so many things can happen in seven years that is seems like a waste of WotC resources. I mean, instead of working on 2022's AP, Perkins could work on the conversion documents.

Sure, but given that they've prioritized seven years of storylines over the conversion documents, they likely view the conversion documents as an afterthought. Something it would be nice to give to fans, with the staff working on it when they have some dead space in their schedule to fill, not a priority with a deadline even. Which would be a possible explanation for why one person's absence could derail the conversion documents - having to shuffle everyone else around might mean assigning more projects to everyone, leaving less time to work on non-priorities like conversion docs.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Even though Monte Cook has stated that WotC had already planned for 3.5e when they were developing 3e?