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.

 

[Parmandur]

I truly hope they don’t, but I could see it too.

I am completely agnostic on the issue, but it would close the Class balance gap for groups that do fewer & deadlier encounters, without changing the daily resource drain for groups that push the character limits.

 

[Parmandur]

@Parmandur

Evidently you don't care about immersion nor book-keeping.

I have no feelings on the matter, just saying what I could see them doing. The point of Short Rests is to create a middle space between once a day shoot and lose it powers and things that can be done all day without qualms. If WotC finds the Proficiency die mechanic works for people better than negotiating and gaming Short Rests, then it would seem reasonable to streamline the game that way.

 

[Parmandur]

We have a gamist majority, then.

I mean, this is a game we are talking about.

 

[ccs]

I could rant forever on their terrible failure of incorporating psionics into D&D side-by-side with magic. It's not a difficult thing to do, it's been in every single editon, if people can't accept it now, they never will so just force it to happen. Who's really going to quit the game because they chose to put a Psionic class as core? Sure some will ignore it out of spite and tell their players don't even bother, but eventually it's going to be accepted over time and soon everyone's using it. No player should accept a DM saying no to Psionics just because of misguided feelings of Psionics from previous editions.

1) I've never thought Psionics - whatever their mechanics are - particularly fit the type of D&D games I aim to run.
2) I've yet to read a psionics rules set that I like. This doesn't encourage me to be proficient in them. If I'm not proficient with the option I won't be able do a fair job of DMing for a psionic character. If you're playing such a character, this will diminish your fun. And most importantly, mine. You know what happens when the DM isn't having fun? Nothing good.
3) So: No psionics when I DM. They don't exist in my world. Or in my version of the FR or whatever. And your character isn't going to be the 1st.

Just make it easy on yourself & save your totally awesome Psion concept for some other game where you'll be able to properly enjoy it. Because my game isn't it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you're playing such a character, this will diminish your fun. And most importantly, mine.

 

[Shair-afiyun]

All I want to see is the short rest system tweaked or replaced. It seems fine on paper, but it was really meant for 4th edition when the rest period was 5 mins and being recharged for combat after combat was encouraged.

Edit: On some thinking, the happy middle ground for rests would be

Short rests now run off a rest point system.
To take a short rest also means to spend 1 rest point.
Short Rests now take 15 minutes, down from an hour.
Rest Points are restored after a long rest.
Players start with 2 rest points spend on short rests.
Later levels provide additional rest points. (Maximum somewhere around 4 or 5 rest points)

As that would mean adventures can still have fairly decent pacing instead of the party just taking a 1-hour break.
Party can potentially go for more rests in later levels.
DM can plan encounters ahead around how many rest points players the players should realistically have.

 

[Charlaquin]

What screwed up 4th edition was the focus on balance at all costs and standardization without good reason, and they are falling right back into the same trap.

Ha, no.

 

[Shair-afiyun]

What screwed up 4th edition was the focus on balance at all costs and standardization without good reason, and they are falling right back into the same trap.

Technically the downfall of 4th edition was less about the balance and standardization and more the fact that 4th edition is radically different compared to prior and subsequent editions.

That 4th edition was really good at being a wargame with miniatures and grinding through dungeons.
However outside of this aspect is where 4th edition was less than satisfactory, as is it wasn't really a roleplayer's game.
And since Pathfinder 1e was basically offered as a cleaned-up 3.75e, people flocked to it and this cost wizards money in sales.
That is why 4th edition lasted for all of 6 years instead of longer, but still has a satisfactory trove worth of books and options to play with.

 

[Panzeh]

Technically the downfall of 4th edition was less about the balance and standardization and more the fact that 4th edition is radically different compared to prior and subsequent editions.

That 4th edition was really good at being a wargame with miniatures and grinding through dungeons.
However outside of this aspect is where 4th edition was less than satisfactory, as is it wasn't really a roleplayer's game.
And since Pathfinder 1e was basically offered as a cleaned-up 3.75e, people flocked to it and this cost wizards money in sales.
That is why 4th edition lasted for all of 6 years instead of longer, but still has a satisfactory trove worth of books and options to play with.

Yeah, 4e picked a lane- it was about dungeon tactics and really drilling down to that experience. Unfortunately, people don't really like it when d&d picks a lane. It's a strength in a lot of other systems not to have to try to be everything to everyone, but D&D's market is definitely how it's perceived as a game that can handle just about any kind of fantasy.

 

[Panzeh]

(Double post)