D&D 5E A Modest Proposal to Unify the Fanbase without D&D Next

[Tony Vargas]

You should get that looked at.

I'm not covered for it, sadly.

I'd very much like to see something in-between the complexity of 1/2e and 3/4. That could deal with the frustrations I have with both of them.

Hmm... If I had to put those 3 eds of D&D on a complexity scale, it'd probably go (from most to least) 3.5, late 2e, 1e, 3.0, 4e+Essentials, early 2e, early 4e, Basic D&D. 3e and late 2e got very bloated, 1e was rendered very complex by it's plethora of odd sub-systems, while 2e initially consolidated a lot of that into a more unified package, and 3.0 and 4e, similarly, started out consolidated and streamlined compared to what preceded (and followed) them, and Basic
D&D, of course, was a limited and simplified starter set.

That is, I don't see a complexity divide between classic (1e/2e/0D&D/BECMI) and modern D&D (3e/4e), rather, editions seem to start off relatively simple (compared to the prior ed), and then grow and bloat into complex messes.


I think that, maybe, when people talk about AD&D being 'simple,' they really mean 'familiar' - because the very familiar /seems/ simple compared to learning something new.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can't begin to count how many times irate 3.5 fans were told basically that. Didn't stop them from defecting to Pathfinder and waging the edition war to (successfully) kill 4e.

Anyway, it's spot-on topic. Ongoing support for 4e would keep him as a customer. Ongoing support for 3.5 would have kept its fans as customers - and maybe even kept them from killing off 4e (maybe).

For the most part (with the possible exception of the 3.5/4e edition war), rejection of a new ed isn't about denying it to those who might like it, but about keeping support for what the hold-out likes. This is a good proposal to take that into account - and a better idea than creating a frankenstein edition pieced together from the corpses of classic versions of D&D.

So you think it is 3E fans who waged a war to successfully kill 4E?

If anyone is to blame for the death of 4E then it is the designers who made the game that split the fanbase. No matter how irate the 3E fanbase was no matter how vocal if 4E sold like hot cakes then I doubt that WOTC would be investing in a new edition.

It seems to me that what they are trying to do is look at what worked and what didn't and see if this time they can make a game that the majority will like.

For a lot of people the changes to 4E were to extreme so it seems they are going back to the drawing board and the games roots to try and make an edition that still plays like DnD but fixes a lot of the issues that fans have had over the years.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you think it is 3E fans who waged a war to successfully kill 4E?

Well, the edition war happened and 4e is dead, so the correlation is certainly there.

I think the OGL and Pathfinder probably had more to do with it than the relentless, if disorganized, campaign of hatred and dis-information that characterized the edition war. But, I'm sure both contributed to 4e's "failure," and colored the 'lesson' WotC learned from it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, the edition war happened and 4e is dead, so the correlation is certainly there.

I think the OGL and Pathfinder probably had more to do with it than the relentless, if disorganized, campaign of hatred and dis-information that characterized the edition war. But, I'm sure both contributed to 4e's "failure," and colored the 'lesson' WotC learned from it.

There was an edition war when 3E came out a lot of people were very vocal about it and didn't make the switch and stuck with the older editions and the retroclones do you think they killed 3E?

Even if Pathfinder had not come out I don't think people would have said well darn I guess I am going to have play that edition I don't like. They would do what I have done which is play with my 3.5 books or what my friend does play with his 2E books minuses skills and powers.

The forums only represent a small portion of gamers, of my group I am the only who goes to them. So I doubt the fact that for a lot of people who didn't change or didn't stick with had anything do with the hate and the misinformation. For some I think it had to do with timing. 4E came out right at the start of the great recession and lot of people have lost jobs and have known people who have and many people stopped spending money on luxuries.


I think it is rather interesting to put the blame on people for not liking an edition and not buying it. I don't care how much I love DnD I am not going to spend money on books I will never use.

As for a correlation they don't work like that. That is just fuzzy logic just because 2+2=4 and 2x2=4 does not mean 3+3 and 3x3 will equal the same number.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm... If I had to put those 3 eds of D&D on a complexity scale, it'd probably go (from most to least) 3.5, late 2e, 1e, 3.0, 4e+Essentials, early 2e, early 4e, Basic D&D.

I am including bloat (at least the potential for bloat) in what I mean by complexity, and obviously I'm addressing the editions based at least partly on my experiences. Complexity of characters is at the forefront of my mind.

I think that, maybe, when people talk about AD&D being 'simple,' they really mean 'familiar' - because the very familiar /seems/ simple compared to learning something new.

That can't be it. I'm most familiar with the 3.X system, because that's the edition I actually wrote stuff for, and so had to get into the details more. And yet I find it a complex version of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am including bloat (at least the potential for bloat) in what I mean by complexity.

OK. Based on that, it'd be tough to call between 2e and 3e, both had long runs and tons of supplements.

Complexity of characters is at the forefront of my mind.

Ah. Well, characters certainly became more detailed from 1e to 2e to 3e. 3e's modular approach to multiclassing simplified classes, some, because, for instance, they all went on the same experience chart, but a given 'build' could be extraordinarily complex. 4e removed a lot of complexity by using an underlying structure for all classes, Essentials added some back in. I've run each edition, and tend to think of the system as a whole when I consider complexity. Creating monsters in 3.x, for instance - you had a system and CR as a guide, but it was quite an undertaking - in 4e it's simple, in AD&D it's purely by feel, there's nothing to help you with the task (simple? complex? - hard to say, but definitely not /easy/).

I'm most familiar with the 3.X system, because that's the edition I actually wrote stuff for, and so had to get into the details more. And yet I find it a complex version of the game.

Yeah, it's not an explanation for everyone. I was /very/ familiar with 1e - thanks to the absorbent quality of adolescent brains, I'm probably going to go to my grave remembering 1e rules better than any other - but I still recognize it's complexity.

 

[Yora]

You should get that looked at. I'd very much like to see something in-between the complexity of 1/2e and 3/4. That could deal with the frustrations I have with both of them.

All editions of D&D are bad, they are just bad for different reasons. So far, 5th Edition seems to avoid pretty much all the complaints I have with the older ones.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can't begin to count how many times irate 3.5 fans were told basically that. Didn't stop them from defecting to Pathfinder and waging the edition war to (successfully) kill 4e.

I think you do the edition war far too much credit. 4e has lasted longer than 3.5 did - and a lot longer than 3.0 did. They just need more if they are ever to make that $50 million/year target.

And we'll know an edition's failed if there isn't a subsequent one.

Now I might want a 4.5 (bits of 4e clunk badly) but there is enough support for 4e out there that literally the only books I want for 4e are a Birthright setting (including domain management and mass combat) and a Spelljammer setting. Oh, and more monster vaults. I literally can't think of anythng else I really want for 4e.

Edit: Come to think of it I'd also like a proper treatment of Sigil/Planescape in more depth than they gave in the DMG 2. But only if they retcon the timeline so that the Faction War never happened (for those of you who don't know, the Faction War makes the Spellplague look like a case of benign neglect of a setting).

Actually, between retro-clones and Pathfinder, all editions of D&D /except/ 4e, will be supported in perpetuity, anyway, so it's pretty close.

And I'm sure there will be a D20 retroclone of 4e using OGL-released material and reverse engineering. Same way the other retroclones work. It just needs something to coalesce the fanbase on. (On rpg.net I mostly jokingly suggested Paizo should make one to force WotC onto the back foot with 5e - and it would be a jackpot for any other game company).

 

[Balesir]

Now I might want a 4.5 (bits of 4e clunk badly) but there is enough support for 4e out there that literally the only books I want for 4e are a Birthright setting (including domain management and mass combat) and a Spelljammer setting. Oh, and more monster vaults. I literally can't think of anythng else I really want for 4e.

4e Birthright would be awesome - it was a peerless idea but not well supported by the 2e rules at all.

Include social interaction and exploration rules on a par with 4e's combat rules and I'm in clover

 

[delericho]

There's no chance of a petition of this sort stopping WotC from working on 5e, no matter how many signatures it gets. The time for that was about two years ago.

In any event, I couldn't support it. I want 5e. And in time I'll want 6e, and 7e, and... Simply put, none of the existing editions leaves me completely satisfied, and there's virtually no chance of 5e achieving that either. So, keep trying new things, and hopefully we'll get there some day.

As for supporting all the old editions...

In principle, that is indeed something I would like to see. After all, why would I want them to not support other people? That's just mean.

Unfortunately, though, that only works if you have sufficient resources to support multiple editions and you don't care how many units of each you sell. But neither of these is true.

Each time WotC devotes resources to edition X, that means less support for edition Y. The reduced release schedule of the past couple of years hasn't been because they've just been sitting around - 4e support has suffered because of the work being done on 5e. Now, split that 5+ ways to support all the editions, and you'll be lucky to get one book for any given edition in the year.

Meanwhile, whether we like it or not, WotC have expectations over how D&D will perform. And that means that every book must justify its existence, or it doesn't get published. If they try to sell to a fractured market, then every book will sell fewer units than it otherwise would. And so, instead of one book doing well enough, you have 5 books which each individually fail. (And that applies even if the total sales of all together are higher, even much higher, than for the one.)

Now, that said, there are a few things they probably can do:

- Edition neutral products. Traditionally, these have actually sold quite poorly, but they may be able to get some of them to fly, especially setting-specific products such as "Menzoberranzan".

- Multi-edition products. Again, attempts by publishers to dual-stat products have usually failed, because it increases the cost to include the material, and every customer will then be paying for something they know they don't want. However, if they create something reasonably crunch-lite, it might be worth providing multiple sets of stats.

- Online conversion guides, available through DDI. Especially for 4e support (where the DDI customer base already exists) this may well be a worthwhile option.

- Opportunistic support. Maybe they do an article here and there in the e-mags (again, this is best for 4e, but that might change if DDI takeup amongst other edition fans increases). Or their "Free RPG" adventure could be 1st Edition, just for the nostalgia. Or something.

- Reprints. To be honest, I don't expect a lot of these, since most things are available via eBay for good prices, and very few items outside the core will be able to justify the costs even of doing the reprint. Still, they might manage a "Rules Cyclopedia", a new printing of the old "Red Box", or perhaps compilations of the classic modules (or even "Dragonlance").

- PDFs/PoD. I don't expect a great deal here, since the old PDF files weren't really very good in most cases, but anything that they do reprint should then be suitable for sale in PDF form, or on a PoD basis.

- Third-party support. I'm inclined to think that WotC would do well to formally open up the old-edition rules via the OGL. After all, the retroclones already exist, and already make third-party support possible, so it's not like WotC would actually be losing anything, but they'd get the goodwill of acknowledging "hey, we can't support this as fully as we like - you go ahead." And while we're at it, allowing support of 4e would be no bad thing, too.

 

[delericho]

I think you do the edition war far too much credit. 4e has lasted longer than 3.5 did - and a lot longer than 3.0 did.

I think your dates may be off.

3.0e was released in 2000
3.5e was released in 2003
4e was released in 2008

So, 3.5e lasted 5 years, while 4e has lasted 4 so far. (And that's assuming you don't consider Essentials a substantive revision on a par with 3.5e.)

They just need more if they are ever to make that $50 million/year target.

I really hope they're no longer operating under that requirement. I don't see how they can possibly hope to achieve it - the DDI was the most likely route to that, but seems to have fallen short in 4e, and I don't see how 5e is going to do significantly better - not least since they haven't said anything about their intentions for DDI with 5e.

And I'm sure there will be a D20 retroclone of 4e using OGL-released material and reverse engineering. Same way the other retroclones work. It just needs something to coalesce the fanbase on. (On rpg.net I mostly jokingly suggested Paizo should make one to force WotC onto the back foot with 5e - and it would be a jackpot for any other game company).

I hope you're right. Unfortunately, my gut feeling is that if anyone tries it and makes any sort of a success of it, they'll have to be very careful about the legal stuff, of they'll face the Wrath of the Lawyers. Because a good 4e retroclone stands to be the second-biggest competitor to 5e (after Pathfinder), and while there's nothing WotC can do about Pathfinder, you can bet they would go after a 4e clone if they had any grounds.

 

[the Jester]

Last night, I posted a blog with a proposal to WotC to consider an alternative course than to publish yet another edition of D&D. I've even linked in a petition on Change.org, and I’m hoping to get some grassroots support from those in the D&D community who are not favoring D&D Next to sign on.

Please check out the blog here A Proposal & Petition:
Say YES to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS / Say NO THANKS to D&D NEXT

And if you like the proposal, please link it to your fellow gamers who might be interested in considering something other than D&D Next for the future of the game.

And remember: Supporting ALL D&D EDITIONS means supporting ALL D&D FANS!

No offense, but your petition betrays a lack of understanding that D&D, from WotC's perspective, is a business; that it must make money; that economy of scale is a huge piece of the puzzle; and that by keeping 4 (or however many) versions of the game in print and continuing to publish new material for them, they will need more staff and to expend more resources to publish material that will have a smaller potential customer base than if they keep working on only one version of the game.

It's a nonstarter IMHO, and I don't see the need to ask WotC to go down that path when smaller companies that can afford it are keeping the other editions fresh with retroclone material and Pathfinder, which are generally compatible with the edition that they emulate.

 

[shamsael]

Last night, I posted a blog with a proposal to WotC to consider an alternative course than to publish yet another edition of D&D. I've even linked in a petition on Change.org, and I’m hoping to get some grassroots support from those in the D&D community who are not favoring D&D Next to sign on.

Please check out the blog here A Proposal & Petition:
Say YES to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS / Say NO THANKS to D&D NEXT

And if you like the proposal, please link it to your fellow gamers who might be interested in considering something other than D&D Next for the future of the game.

And remember: Supporting ALL D&D EDITIONS means supporting ALL D&D FANS!

Support ALL D&D FANS by depriving 5e fans of 5e?

Go away.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e has lasted longer than 3.5 did - and a lot longer than 3.0 did.

3e went 8 years, 4e has gone 4 and is basically dead at this point (no new material forthcoming), even if 5e isn't out yet. Dividing it into 3.0 and 3.5 gives you one game that went 3 and one 5. Dividing 4e at Essentials, that's two games at 2 years each.

No matter how you slice it, 4e has been killed prematurely, even compared to 3e.

And, if you count ongoing OGL 3pp support and Pathfinder, 3.x is immortal: it's gone 12 years and can keep going forever.

And I'm sure there will be a D20 retroclone of 4e using OGL-released material and reverse engineering.

The GSL makes cloning 4e on the level that Pathfinder cloned 3.5 impossible (well, illegal). And, while some sort of vague immitation using the OGL might stand the legal test, it's unlikely any 3pp would have the resources to carry through on the necessary legal defense to get there.

With nothing to 'rally around' the 4e fanbase will either feel forced into 5e or away from D&D altogether, there's not enough non-WotC 4e resources to make a go of it. That will, of course, be taken as final proof of the edition's failure.

 

[Mallus]

And the reason they're doing it is to re-capture the lost revenue that fans of past eds of D&D represent. They may also get plenty of longtime fans who'll buy anything with the logo, and those curious to see whether it's any good, at first, but they are very clearly going back and resurrecting bits of old editions in an appeal to nostalgia - and revenue a successful appeal to nostalgia might bring.

As someone whose group went from a 4e campaign, to an AD&D game --started on a lark and out of nostalgia-- let me offer my perspective.

There are plenty of great reasons to play older versions that have *nothing* to do with nostalgia. My group finds AD&D to be much, much faster in play, which is perfect for us, playing 2-3 hours on a Friday night, with periodic kid interruptions and general dinner party like socialization going on.

But there are also additional elements we wished AD&D had, and none of us --professional careers, families, etc.-- have the time or inclination to extensively house-rule anyone.

Ergo, 5e seems to meet a consumer need of ours.

Which isn't pure nostalgia, nor a sinister compulsion to hand WotC our money.

Framing 5e as nothing but a nostalgia-laden cash grab ignores the part of the D&D player base I happen belong to.

Please don't do that. It gives me a sad (actually, it doesn't).

Everything they do is about revenue.

Of course. So let's stop talking about revenue. That WotC wants it is a given.

]Which is why they shouldn't stop at re-prints, but put out new material for old eds, as well.

I don't see WotC doing it. Besides, it's unnecessary. The OSR's got it covered.

Meh. I see a lot of fans who are rabid about their favorite edition.

Fans like to argue, especially when given access to the 24-hour anonymous global bitchfest that is the Internet. Take it with a Gibraltar-sized icosahedron made entirely of salt...

 

[rogueattorney]

Since WotC took over the D&D brand, they have in rough chronological order:

1. Licensed Hackmaster, a mock tribute to AD&D;

2. Issued the Silver Anniversary collector's set, which reprinted the 1978 Basic rules, contained a number of O(A)D&D modules including a never before issued 1e module;

3. Released (via Paizo) the CD-Rom archives of Dragon magazine, containing the entire run The Strategic Review and the first 250 issues of The Dragon;

4. Licensed and then took in-house the release of a huge chunk of OOP materials for download;

5. Offered a number of OOP materials for free download on their website;

6. Issued the OGL, which effectively allowed for copyright clean versions of OOP D&D to be published by others;

7. Released very nice collector's editions of the 1e core books;

8. Announced (but have not yet released) collector's editions of the 3.5e core books.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

Many or most of the above have been problematic in some regard. WotC has been far from systematic or consistent with regard to their OOP materials, maddeningly so. However, I don't think it can be claimed that they haven't made an effort. I feel that they understand that there's a market for the material and I think they feel that they have an obligation to the franchise to preserve its history. They just don't seem to have any idea at all as to how to go about doing it.

Hopefully, after 5e comes out, they can devote some resources to taking a serious look at their OOP intellectual property and come up with a means of sharing it with their customers that respectfully serves both the customers and the brand.

 

[BobTheNob]

Piping in late my issue with your position is...

Well, for a while now (decades really) I have been looking at D&D and I came to a number of core conclussions about it. Things I just didnt like. I look at all the editions and think "Nah, aspect A bugged me" and another edition and think "aspect B bugged me".

Now if I was looking at the list in its entirety, the funny thing is, alot of the things that I dislike have already been mentioned as part of the design goals of 5e. So my problem with the article is that (drum role) 5e sounds like the edition Im looking for, and what your actually saying is because others like previous editions, I shouldnt have 5e. (or at least, thats the impression I got).

So maybe WOTC shouldn't be saying 5e is the edition to unite all, but that doesnt exclude it from being a happy member of the edition community.

 

[pogre]

I'm very much looking forward to 5e. I understand the distress some 4e folks have at the direction of Next. I played WFRP for 11 years and went through 4 or 5 years with an unsupported game. It's possible, it's fun, but it is a little tougher.

From WOTC perspective I would wager their thought process is something like this for reunification:

Number of Paizo folks + Number of legacy D&D players is much greater than the number of 4e players. Therefore, the new game to reunify D&D players would lean towards those rulesets.

That's my W.A.G., but I do understand why some 4e players feel abandoned.

 

[Neuroglyph]

I'm very much looking forward to 5e. I understand the distress some 4e folks have at the direction of Next. I played WFRP for 11 years and went through 4 or 5 years with an unsupported game. It's possible, it's fun, but it is a little tougher.

From WOTC perspective I would wager their thought process is something like this for reunification:

Number of Paizo folks + Number of legacy D&D players is much greater than the number of 4e players. Therefore, the new game to reunify D&D players would lean towards those rulesets.

That's my W.A.G., but I do understand why some 4e players feel abandoned.

Well sadly, I think your formula (and WotC's) is flawed. Alienating all the 4E players who don't want to go retro gaming is the mirror image of the same model that left the 3.5 gamers disenfranchised when they didn't want a new fangled AEDU game system for D&D. And honestly, with the number of oddball 4E-isms and the overly simplified monsters that have found their way into the 5E core rules already, I think WotC is being overly hopeful about the number of Pathfinder and 3.5 fans they will pull over into D&D Next. I anticipate it's going to be less than 1 in 100.

On the other hand, converting old modules, sourcebooks, and campaign settings which never appeared in 3.5 over into the OGL rules set - which is perfectly compatible with Pathfinder - as well as new content developed down the line at WotC, means those products will be usable to 100% of the Paizo fan base. That's the beauty of the content-provider model. All players get to keep playing their favorite editions, and they get new content.

And to those who claim a POD content-provider model doesn't work, I really suggest that you should check out Paizo. Most of their catalog consists of supplemental material for a couple core rulebooks, like Golarian setting books, add-on character content, specialized bestiaries, and modules. They are making that model work for them, with a substantially smaller library, and still beating the pants off WotC for sales. And they aren't making constant excuses about ebooks because of fears of piracy, I might add.

Just imagine what WotC could do if they actually stepped outside their 1980s publishing model and put the massive D&D library of products out there for D&D gamers of every edition.

 

[the Jester]

And to those who claim a POD content-provider model doesn't work, I really suggest that you should check out Paizo.

Comparing how much money Paizo needs to make on a product to justify writing it to how much money WotC needs to make is like comparing the income of Suriname with that of the U.S.

The economic realities are simply very different. Paizo, despite being one of the big names in rpgs, is a small company. WotC is an arm of a huge corporation. Not at all the same. And translating all those books to a new system takes designer time and money, which is time and money not spent on the products that will make WotC more money and to support their own product line.