D&D 5E A Board Game style Release Schedule

[delericho]

Actually that last statement seems very interesting to me. I think that for parts, the physical books is fairly intrinsic to the game - specifically the core books.

I think the move away from physical books is inevitable. Annoyingly, I also think WotC had pretty much the right mechanism for that move already in place, in the form of the DDI (and specifically the Compendium). Having essentially abandoned it, they'll now have to reinvent it if they decide to go that route again.

I think that their adventures (HotDQ first, then TRoT, and then the DDEX1-* adventures ) will make their way to dndclassics after their run in Adventurers League is over. Once PotA is out. Once PotA has wound down and the next book is out, PotA and DDEX2-* will make their way to dndclassics.

The hardback adventure paths will go out of physical print. 2014's adventures will not be reprinted.

I tend to agree.

I'm very doubtful that the three core books will make their way to official PDF any time soon.

I hope you're wrong about this. But I don't think you are.

I don't think we'll ever see the OGL from WoTC again. I think we'll see something like the GSL instead.

Again, I hope you're wrong about this, but don't think you are. Further, I think any license less than the OGL will promptly be ignored almost entirely.

On the other side they don't have the legal framework to make it illegal for others to print adventures that are compatible with D&D any more than it's illegal to use off-brand coffee in a Keurig. The best way that they can proceed is to lay some groundwork for others to publish compatible product without actually stepping on their copyrights. I don't think they want to become a litigation firm. That said, they have no obligation to allow others to paraphrase what they've written and sell it as a new book.

I don't think they can stop it. I would be surprised if it wasn't possible to do a clone of 5e under the OGL. It's just not worth the hassle - the exact same book with the serial numbers filed off would sell a fraction of the copies, even if it could be sold at a fraction of the price (which it probably couldn't). Ryan Dancey was asked about that very possibility way back when the OGL was formulated; his reply was essentially, "they're welcome to try."

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Wow, left this thread for an evening and every response since has made some great points - I agree with them all!

Rather than quoting everyone, I'll just state that yes, I'm certain they'll re-release the core books with changes, though that might just be limited to legitimate typo corrections and rules clarification (Stealth rules, for example) - the new ranger sub-class for example would likely appear in an Unearthed Arcana book than a revised PHB. They stressed "additive" change (rules alternatives) rather than replacement in their survey results article. I'd be much happier with CoC style edition turnover, but in D&D terms I see that as releasing 5.1, 5.2, 5.3..., not a 6E.

I don't think they'll get rid of physical books altogether in the near future, but it's possible whatever "5.1" additions / fixes are added to the game will be around in digital form for a good long time before they actually send it to the printers. I'd actually prefer it that way myself but know a lot of fans will hate to not have everything compiled in one place.

I would like to see the books released digitally, but don't think we'll see them in PDF - in theory that's not necessarily a bad thing, there ARE formats better suited for browsing / searching than PDF, but am pretty skeptical as I think they'll take the opportunity to launch them in a DRM heavy app or file format. That's essentially what Project Morningstar was going to be, and if Wizards really wanted PDFs out I think we'd have them by now. Which is a shame as DRM is completely pointless, only serving to annoy or put off legitimate customers - pirates never even see it (and have had PDFs of the core books for months now).

Re: the OGL, I think the genie is out of the bottle and that that is a good thing - people will put together OGL supplements for 5E whether the edition is officially released under it or not. So far the third-party content for 5E has been pretty good, and I think third-party glut will be less of an issue this time around - this is 2015 so most of it will be digital rather than cluttering up store shelves, and in general I believe people today are much more inclined to do a little research online on product quality before they buy than they were in 2005.

 

[Iosue]

Semantics between 6th ed and 5th ed 2nd printing.

I would say that folding in online eratta does not make for a new edition. It does make for a new printing or a new revision.

That all said, I hope that every printing includes some editorial tweaking.

I'm not talking about printings, I'm talking about incorporating new rules, new crunch and new art. If WotC releases the same essential core rules, but with, say, the mass combat rules, a revised ranger, maybe switching out some of the older backgrounds and feats with newer, more popular ones that were released later in 5e's life, and top it off with new artwork, that's a new edition. And entirely different from a printing. That's what editions were until WotC started their "0.5" silliness.

 

[bmfrosty]

I'm not talking about printings, I'm talking about incorporating new rules, new crunch and new art. If WotC releases the same essential core rules, but with, say, the mass combat rules, a revised ranger, maybe switching out some of the older backgrounds and feats with newer, more popular ones that were released later in 5e's life, and top it off with new artwork, that's a new edition. And entirely different from a printing. That's what editions were until WotC started their "0.5" silliness.

So you think they should change the rules (swap out feats) and not just add to them. Yes, that would be a new edition. I say that they shouldn't do a new edition. They should do a new printing that includes any added rules.

If they're changing rules, that's an edition.

If they're changing fluff and clarifying rules, adding some spells, adding some classes and races - then that's a new printing.

What we have here is 5th edition. If we added in the crunch from the Players Companion for PotA and it's associated fluff, and the mass combat rules, then that could be 5th edition, second printing.

Same idea with major and minor software versions.

If we were doing this in software, it would be v5.0.0 and v5.0.1. We're adding additional information that's available and official, but doesn't change the core game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not talking about printings, I'm talking about incorporating new rules, new crunch and new art. If WotC releases the same essential core rules, but with, say, the mass combat rules, a revised ranger, maybe switching out some of the older backgrounds and feats with newer, more popular ones that were released later in 5e's life, and top it off with new artwork, that's a new edition. And entirely different from a printing. That's what editions were until WotC started their "0.5" silliness.

Errata and new art work doesn't really count as a new edition see the 1989/1995 printings of the PHB for 2E.

Changing the rules does (3.0 to 3.5).

 

[Mistwell]

OK I asked Mike Mearls what happened, and here is what he said on Twitter:

"Leaks are never authorized. Distributors, etc. get to see our plans when they are still forming, rather than final. For instance, I think we shared 5e release dates with retailers/distributors and later changed them. We've also shown off entire game lines that were never released."

So looks like this was not an authorized leak, it was not some intentional customer-oriented teaser being put out there. It was, apparently, intended for distributors to see as part of a not-final plan that was not intended for consumers, which the distributors know is sometimes changed or even entirely pulled before the plan is finalized. At least, that's how I read that.

 

[Iosue]

So you think they should change the rules (swap out feats) and not just add to them.

I'm not saying they should do anything. I'm saying what I think is the least that will happen. That even if WotC feels that the essential ruleset as it stands now is "evergreen", and they're not going to redesign it from the ground up again, then that just means that 6e will be a change like Holmes to Moldvay to Mentzer, or like 1e to 2e.

If we were doing this in software, it would be v5.0.0 and v5.0.1. We're adding additional information that's available and official, but doesn't change the core game.

Here are some actual semantics. Editions aren't (or at least shouldn't be) equivalent to Versions.

 

[Kramodlog]

OK I asked Mike Mearls what happened, and here is what he said on Twitter: "Leaks are never authorized. Distributors, etc. get to see our plans when they are still forming, rather than final. For instance, I think we shared 5e release dates with retailers/distributors and later changed them. We've also shown off entire game lines that were never released."

So looks like this was not an authorized leak, it was not some intentional customer-oriented teaser being put out there. It was, apparently, intended for distributors to see as part of a not-final plan that was not intended for consumers, which the distributors know is sometimes changed or even entirely pulled before the plan is finalized. At least, that's how I read that.

Where does Mearls say that some of the info shown to distributors were not ment to be made public? Mearls never said that. It is your personal opinion, not something Mearls said.

What Mearls sais is that unauthorized leaks are not permitted. So the logical conclusion is that the info we got on PotA and the splatbook was authorized. It is the simplest reason why the information was made public and also why it happened twice*. After the first time I would suspect WotC would have warn anyone who breached a NDA.

*In August of 2014 we got the ad copys. In January of 2015 we got the cover art.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Where does Mearls say that some of the info shown to distributors were not ment to be made public? Mearls never said that. It is your personal opinion, not something Mearls said.

What Mearls sais is that unauthorized leaks are not permitted. So the logical conclusion is that the info we got on PotA and the splatbook was authorized. It is the simplest reason why the information was made public and also why it happened twice*. After the first time I would suspect WotC would have warn anyone who breached a NDA.

*In August of 2014 we got the ad copys. In January of 2015 we got the cover art.

He said "leaks" were not authorized. Leaks generally mean material that was not meant to go out. What Mearls is saying is that those were leaks, WOTC did not ask anyone to release that information and someone did it without their permission. He says that often share information about products in the planning stages with retailers. The implication in that statement is that we don't currently know about any of those OTHER unreleased products so there was a reasonable expectation from WOTC that we would never find out about this one either. Someone released information they shouldn't have.

There likely was not an NDA signed because WOTC didn't feel one was necessary. Even if one was signed, they aren't that enforceable and they aren't worth enforcing if you need to continue dealing with the company in question in a professional capacity afterwards. It's possible WOTC called them up and said "Hey, you were supposed to keep that information under wraps, try to make sure it doesn't happen again." That's assuming they even know who leaked the information. It's certainly possible that they gave the information out to so many companies that they don't even know the original source of the leak.

I'm 100% certain that they planned a book, they created ad copy and a cover mock up. They discussed their plans with their publisher and possibly some retailers to get a sense of who would likely purchase the book when it was printed. They were likely ready to release it but then someone inside the company changed their mind. Likely for the reason's Mearls gave: That it is up in the air exactly what support for an RPG should look like.

Someone at WOTC said "We're making a book because that's what we did last edition. Maybe we should do something different this edition instead." So, they put all their plans on hold, didn't officially announce the book to the public, and decided to split the book into pieces and release it online instead.

 

[delericho]

It is the simplest reason why the information was made public and also why it happened twice*.

*In August of 2014 we got the ad copys. In January of 2015 we got the cover art.

Nitpick: three times. There was also the B&N leak of the PHB release date and price point.