D&D 5E Are you ready for a new edition of D&D?

[ShinHakkaider]

I never knew much about the OGL, but it seemed to be a suicidal idea from an economics perspective. Essentially like handing over all your R&D over to your competitors and green-lighting them to make money off your products. How much money has Pathfinder made off WotC's investment in 3rd edition?

In what universe is this a good thing for a business to do?

This would make some sort of sense if WOTC did not basically abandon that version of D&D. Never to be used again by them.

If it was a version of d&d that you despised and never wanted to see again then Okay. But if like myself and obviously MANY others we weren't quite done with that version. Why shouldn't the system live on and continued to be played.

WOTC made money off of 3x for 8 whole years before they decided to move on to 4E.

HOW would they still be making money off of 3x and 3x fans after that? They wouldnt.

For players and fans the OGL was a resounding success. The very idea that we should somehow be forced to play the latest version of D&D just because it IS D&D is pretty much gone. And I for one am very happy about that.

It's not like the brand is going to be hurting. There's a large amount of the fanbase who are going to by D&D just because it is D&D.

In truth, EVERYONE wins.

 

[The Human Target]

I never knew much about the OGL, but it seemed to be a suicidal idea from an economics perspective. Essentially like handing over all your R&D over to your competitors and green-lighting them to make money off your products. How much money has Pathfinder made off WotC's investment in 3rd edition?

In what universe is this a good thing for a business to do?

Yeah, it was great for gamers but a huuuuge mistake for WotC business.

Say what you will about 4e, but the main reason (or one of them at worst) it didn't do well is that for the first time ever D&D had to compete with an actively supported version of its self. On top of the heap of thousands of older 3e books.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm ready.

3e was a great step forward when it came out, but I think it would be a shame if it was still the market standard rpg fifteen years after its release. Surely we have learned from it enough to take the game to a new level with revisions that rationally address some of the problems and introduce some new ideas.

Of course, there wasn't a shred of that in any of the 4e releases, and the 5e playtests never look promising, but we do need a new edition, just a better one than whoever's left at WotC seems capable of making.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Yeah, it was great for gamers but a huuuuge mistake for WotC business.

Say what you will about 4e, but the main reason (or one of them at worst) it didn't do well is that for the first time ever D&D had to compete with an actively supported version of its self. On top of the heap of thousands of older 3e books.

Or maybe people actually didnt LIKE 4E?

I dont understand when people say this. It's as if people were simply going to play D&D no matter what. Whether they actually liked the system or not. People who liked 4e PLAYED 4e. People who didnt DIDNT.
If they didnt like 4e they would have played it until they DID?

Like I said, I dont get this reasoning.

 

[DM Howard]

I'm most certainly ready. I've been fully ready for about a year now.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I'm ready.

3e was a great step forward when it came out, but I think it would be a shame if it was still the market standard rpg fifteen years after its release. Surely we have learned from it enough to take the game to a new level with revisions that rationally address some of the problems and introduce some new ideas.

Of course, there wasn't a shred of that in any of the 4e releases, and the 5e playtests never look promising, but we do need a new edition, just a better one than whoever's left at WotC seems capable of making.

So you want a new edition – but Next ain't it.
I think you may be waiting a long time.

 

[billd91]

Or maybe people actually didnt LIKE 4E?

I dont understand when people say this. It's as if people were simply going to play D&D no matter what. Whether they actually liked the system or not. People who liked 4e PLAYED 4e. People who didnt DIDNT.
If they didnt like 4e they would have played it until they DID?

Like I said, I dont get this reasoning.

Yeah, I don't get it either. D&D has always had to compete with itself. AD&D even had to compete with an actively supported D&D. I think the competition may be more acute when the proximate editions are highly different. I doubt the competition when 2e was released was anything close to when 3e was released and we pretty clearly witnessed the intense competition when 4e was released.

I'd also say we saw it when other games followed up reasonably successful editions with substantially different ones too. Traveller: New Era, anyone?

 

[Wulfgar76]

This would make some sort of sense if WOTC did not basically abandon that version of D&D. Never to be used again by them.
If it was a version of d&d that you despised and never wanted to see again then Okay. But if like myself and obviously MANY others we weren't quite done with that version. Why shouldn't the system live on and continued to be played.

It should. Anyone who wants to keep playing it can. But from a business perspective, a competitor making money off the product you invested to develop runs counter to every principle of economics I've ever heard of.

For players and fans the OGL was a resounding success. The very idea that we should somehow be forced to play the latest version of D&D just because it IS D&D is pretty much gone. And I for one am very happy about that.

Nobody is forcing anyone to play anything. The question here is letting competitors sell the product you created for free.
Sure it's awesome for consumer, but not so much for the business who is losing money.

In truth, EVERYONE wins.

How exactly does WotC win with an OGL?

I work in marketing, and the OGL seems like one of the stupidest things a game-maker could ever do.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, I don't get it either. D&D has always had to compete with itself. AD&D even had to compete with an actively supported D&D. I think the competition may be more acute when the proximate editions are highly different. I doubt the competition when 2e was released was anything close to when 3e was released and we pretty clearly witnessed the intense competition when 4e was released.

I'd also say we saw it when other games followed up reasonably successful editions with substantially different ones too. Traveller: New Era, anyone?

For sure every edition has to compete with the older dead editions.

But for all intents and purposes, 4e had to compete with a living 3e.

Now 5e is going to gave to compete with a live 3e and all the other dead editions plus 13th Age.

 

[The Human Target]

Or maybe people actually didnt LIKE 4E?

I dont understand when people say this. It's as if people were simply going to play D&D no matter what. Whether they actually liked the system or not. People who liked 4e PLAYED 4e. People who didnt DIDNT.
If they didnt like 4e they would have played it until they DID?

Like I said, I dont get this reasoning.

Absolutely, plenty if people didn't like 4e.

But tons of people prefer to playing living supported games that have an active community.

So when a new edition hits, they switch.

But with 3e, they could keep on playing it.