D&D 5E D&D Head Talks Future Plans (Sort Of)

WotC has launched a new design blog. The first edition is written by D&D head Ray Winninger, and he talks a little about future plans.

"Later in the year, Chris will return with our big summer adventure, James Wyatt will deliver a substantially improved version of a concept that I initiated myself, and Amanda Hamon will close us out with a project that was jointly conceived by herself and several other studio members. As usual, Jeremy Crawford is working with all of our leads, overseeing mechanical content and rules development.

In addition to these five major products, look for a couple of additional surprises we’ll unveil in the months ahead."

You can read the full blog here:

Who We Are & What We Do | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

The first of many design blogs, direct from your friends at the Dungeons & Dragons Studio!

dnd.wizards.com

He also mentions that a D&D book takes 12-14 months to make, and half the projects developed don't make it to market. Winninger describes the structure of WotC's 'D&D Studio':

"The D&D Studio itself is organized into four departments: Game Design, Art, Production, and Product Management, each led by a department head. Game Design is responsible for the developing game mechanics and stories. Art establishes the “look and feel” of Dungeons & Dragons by creating visual concepts, directing our freelance illustrators, and creating innovative graphic designs. The Production department manages our project schedules, interfaces with manufacturing experts, and generally handles administrative matters for the studio. The Product Management department interfaces with sales, marketing, and market research. They also own our long-term product roadmap and look after the D&D business."

The studio has five Product Leads: Jeremy Crawford, Amanda Hamon, Chris Perkins, Wes Schneider, and James Wyatt.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

To call what is essentially a reskinned wizard a psion or mystic does a disservice to the tradition of psionics in D&D.

Eh, Wizards are just Psions or Mystics who have not figured how to get rid of the crutches of needing spell components or memorizing "spells".

 

[Nellisir]

Can we just get another straight-up Monster Manual?

(Probably not; it'll probably be dragon-themed; but...I really just want MM2)

 

[Zaukrie]

Sorry I derailed that thread!

But I'll keep going......I find the entire magic system of 5e to be boring and generic at this point. I know I'm in the DEEP minority on this, but I wish magic schools (spell types) actually really mattered. But I know that will never be the case in 5e (and most likely 6e). I wish what deity your cleric/paladin served actually mattered (why does everyone turn undead, that's silly). But, all of that implies too much fiction and makes the game more complicated (would everyone really pick a wizard that can cast fireball, and not something else? I don't know).

 

[Hatmatter]

But I suspect they'll do a better job in 6E. I mean, if they don't, I may just skip it lol, given we seem to be heading BACK TO THE NINETIES (time-travel voice) in terms of diversity of "good RPGs" by the standards of the time (and those standards are much higher today).

Ruin, I think that you are spot on in that the design principles of 5th edition have kept the Psionicist/Mystic/Psion from being published as a class...for now. Yet, those same principles did end up producing a great class in the Artificer...although I am hoping for some more subclasses for the Artificer, as there is lots more that they can do with it, which only speaks to the success of the design.

However, I do not agree with the above sentiment. I actually think that it is the success of 5th edition that will pave a way for a psionics-using class. What I observed in the UA roll out of psionics subclasses and their publication in Tasha's and then in the interviews with Jeremy Crawford around those publications, is that Wizards has preserved design space for a future psionics-using class. That is just my view, but that is it nevertheless. I think as the years progress, the success of 5th edition will reveal the right time/project for the 5th edition team to move forward with a psionics-using class. Of course, that "right time" might be "very late" for many of us, but I think it will happen.

The Wizards team members interviewed on Dragon Talk and in other places over the years have said that they never permanently bury a project or idea, but often wait for an opportunity to return to it.

 

[Marc_C]

Looking forward to the next article. It's good to know Hasbro is hands off.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course, that "right time" might be "very late" for many of us, but I think it will happen.

You may be correct. Many strange things happen in the latter years of an edition (as seen in 1E, 2E, 3E, and even 4E - shout out to the Vampire class - a surprisingly sensible and well designed class). So I could see a Psion/Mystic/Psionicist suddenly materializing out of air molecules in a year or two. I personally think 6E is likely to land in 2024 though so I think the window is pretty small.

That said I agree with your point re: design space, and maybe they'll do it just to see if it works, and to decide if they want to even bother with Psionics in 6E.

 

[R_J_K75]

For myself, prior to 5E I bought two D&D books: the 3E PHB, and the 4E PHB. I haven't bought Acquisitions Incorporated for 5E, but that's it. Indeed, whenever I have thought "you know, I'm not that interested in Concept X, I'll probably pass on that" I have slowly talked myself into it after a couple months. It's an effective approach.

Maybe Im dense or just never gave it a whole lot of thought, but I suppose less products would mean more sales. ~5 major products a year at $50 is an easier sell than for instance the 3E model of ~2/month at $40.

I'm sure WotC has done their market research and deemed their current approach to best serve the (economic) bottom line.

Theyre using the Any Port in a Storm approach. I suppose if their options are limited people will buy whats available. So seems theyre approach is working.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really think they've boxed themselves in on psionics at this point. They seem unwilling or unable to break the current concepts of magic/casting. Not sure I typed that exactly clearly.....but I just think 5e's design principles are hindering a truly different system for psionics, which is what psionics' fans want (though others may not).

Part of the issue is that there isn't a single system of psionics, and depending on when you bonded with psionics, you may want a system that's incompatible with the other systems. And none of those folks are wrong, but there's also no way to provide a psionics system that satisfies all camps. And, of course, there are also those psionics fans who prefer the 5E version.

From a game design perspective, the 5E take is probably the one with the least friction -- it's just another flavor of magic, even if it's called something else. So it interacts with everything else in the system properly right out of the box. I would bet WotC sticks with this approach going forward, even into other editions.

 

[Parmandur]

Can we just get another straight-up Monster Manual?

(Probably not; it'll probably be dragon-themed; but...I really just want MM2)

Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkeinen's Time of Foes are already the MM2 & MM3. If this is a Draconomicon, it would be MM4.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No player should accept a DM saying no to Psionics just because of misguided feelings of Psionics from previous editions.

You must be a delight to DM.