D&D 5E D&D Next Release Date Set -- Summer 2014

[darjr]

Why is everyone insistent that "monster" is a typo?

There was a clarification from WotC. See the front page news item.

Remember that press release from WotC a couple of days ago which sort-of announced a release date for D&D Next, but which caused lots of debate about what "the most dangerous monster of all time" was? NewbieDM on Twitter has tweeted "WOTC PR just sent me an email confirming it's "monsterS of all time" Plural." So that settles that, then!

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/#ixzz2ouTYAHqV

 

[gweinel]

I would rather have quality over quantity any day.

This has nothing to do with staying unemployed in the end of the year.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That was the overall theory and expectation of 4E as well, though, and we see how well that worked out. The problem with that idea is that while the table top game doesn't have to make tons of money, it does have to generate lots of interest, and 4E never did that. The dryness of the initial books and DDI unintentionally creating a closed system that made collaboration with outside companies difficult at best ended up working against WotC; no one but them and a few fans dedicated to going to their site and subscribing to DDI cared about it enough to do anything with it. The fact it sold so well initially was probably due as much to the initial complaints and the interest and discussion generated by the initial complaints as it was by any genuine interest in the system itself, and that is going to be the big problem they have with Next. Getting people to notice enough to care is going to be a real challenge given the relative dud that was 4E and the now much more crowded marketplace. The system may very well be a solid system, but getting enough people to notice, and more importantly, care, is going to be hard beyond the interest surrounding the initial release. And if the table top game never gets off the ground, none of the "multi-platform" options are going to even be considered because no one else is going to bother with it.

Nor will there likely be a 6th edition. Bad sales that retain a broad interest can be overcome with a new edition; general boredom and disinterest of a brand bred by two "failed" products in a row (at least in terms of public reception and WotC/Hasbro corporate reaction) is a much bigger hurdle, and I frankly don't think WotC has the talent or necessary skillsets to overcome that big of a hurdle. More importantly, I'm not convinced that the corporate suits have enough interest to even try. Add in the fact that Hasbro could care less about D&D if WotC can't get even get it off the ground, and you get the fact that for better or for worse, this is probably the "do or die edition" of the formal D&D brand. It either takes off from here, branching into other platforms, dragging the table top game with it, or it just dies, at least for the foreseeable future.

Good thoughts.

I'm pretty optimistic about 5e doing well for a few reasons. Here are some general thoughts.

1. I think it's actually going to be a system that will be many people's favorite edition (my own included). It's not just a watered down "least offensive" version, it's a vision of the game with a clear goal.
2. 4e initially sold well because of the D&D brand. We'll see exactly the same thing at the start of 5e. Us special interest forum fanatics aside, as many people as bought the initial 4e books, or more, will buy the initial 5e products. There is so much momentum behind the brand name, that a couple of failed editions won't kill interest.
3. The multi-platform options can do well regardless of the tabletop RPG. There are plenty of people who are into the D&D universe who have never played, and may not even have any interest in playing the tabletop RPG. Same goes with novels. You've got Drizzt, you've got Dragonlance, you've got a lot of pages of text out there devoured by non-D&D players.
4. I do agree that if 5e does poorly it's going to be a wound to the brand it will take quite some time to recover.
5. I'm personally hoping that 6e is the final edition. I would say 5e, but as good as I think it will be, they're going to have to go through another iteration in order to fully implement their vision. The first time will have issues.
6. I want a final edition of the game that continues to be published. I truly believe that RPGs can reach a point of completion where major revisions (ie, new editions) are no longer necessary, just like chess, baseball, or a number of other games. I'm hoping for D&D to finally hit that point, and then leave well enough alone. We can continue to have more campaign settings, supplements, novels, video games (that don't even have to use D&D rules), etc, and still stick with a finalized game system that isn't going to be replaced in a few years.

 

[CleverNickName]

It is good to finally have a release date...well, a range of dates at least. "Summer 2014" could mean any time between Easter and Labor Day, but there it is.

My first reaction is anxiety, though, not excitement. I am worried, fellas.

Wizards of the Coast has a lot of polishing to do in a very short amount of time, if they are going to hit that deadline. Others have already mentioned the last playtest packet and how it functioned; there is no need for me to harp on them again. I am just worried that they haven't given themselves enough time...but they see things that I don't. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

And the other thing that worries me? Outside of internet forums, very few people are talking about the new edition of D&D. Not even this weekend, just two days after the release date was announced. At my local game store, more people were talking about Distant Worlds than anything else. On the other hand, internet sales are a significant portion of the market today...so maybe my fears are unfounded.

So, yeah. I'm anxious. I know that a lot is riding on this release, both for the brand and for the company that publishes it. I want D&D Next to do well, if only to finally bridge the rift created by 4th Edition and Pathfinder...and I'm not entirely certain that it will. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[DaveMage]

And the other thing that worries me? Outside of internet forums, very few people are talking about the new edition of D&D. Not even this weekend, just two days after the release date was announced. At my local game store, more people were talking about Distant Worlds than anything else. On the other hand, internet sales are a significant portion of the market today...so maybe my fears are unfounded.

So, yeah. I'm anxious. I know that a lot is riding on this release, both for the brand and for the company that publishes it. I want D&D Next to do well, if only to finally bridge the rift created by 4th Edition and Pathfinder...and I'm not entirely certain that it will. Time will tell, I suppose.

The D&D PR machine has not really started yet, so I wouldn't worry too much about the lack of publicity for Next at this time. I'm sure everyone who might be a potential customer will know about D&D Next in the coming months.

As for "Bridging the Rift", if you mean that folks that only play Pathfinder are going go back to D&D, I doubt it. Pathfinder will continue to have the advantages that appeal to its customers: great adventure writers, great customer support, James Jacobs (has there ever been a designer more responsive to inquiries than this man?), it uses the OGL, and it has a company CEO that *plays the game*. On the other hand, I think Next does bring an end to the Pathfinder vs. 4E D&D edition wars. I don't think many Pathfinder fans have animosity towards Next - they just don't need it. (I'm certainly in that category.) I'm sure some will test it out, but I don't expect many to switch.

Now, if Next uses the OGL and 3PPs produce some fantastic content, that might change things, but I don't see it happening in the short term.

 

[Mercurius]

That was the overall theory and expectation of 4E as well, though, and we see how well that worked out. The problem with that idea is that while the table top game doesn't have to make tons of money, it does have to generate lots of interest, and 4E never did that. The dryness of the initial books and DDI unintentionally creating a closed system that made collaboration with outside companies difficult at best ended up working against WotC; no one but them and a few fans dedicated to going to their site and subscribing to DDI cared about it enough to do anything with it. The fact it sold so well initially was probably due as much to the initial complaints and the interest and discussion generated by the initial complaints as it was by any genuine interest in the system itself, and that is going to be the big problem they have with Next. Getting people to notice enough to care is going to be a real challenge given the relative dud that was 4E and the now much more crowded marketplace. The system may very well be a solid system, but getting enough people to notice, and more importantly, care, is going to be hard beyond the interest surrounding the initial release. And if the table top game never gets off the ground, none of the "multi-platform" options are going to even be considered because no one else is going to bother with it.

Hmm...while I agree with much of what you're saying here, some of it seems colored by excessive negativity and assumptions that I don't entirely agree with. For instance, I don't think early sales of 4E had anything to do with the "initial complaints" about the game. I think every edition generates a ton of sales, at least at first. 4E was no different. The people who bought it, for the most part at least, bought regardless of what the negative hype was. They bought it because it was the new edition of D&D and most fans of a moderate or greater investment level will buy and transition to the new edition when it comes out.

Rather than people buying 4E because of complaints, I think people bought it despite the complaints. The difference, however, from say 3E is that where the vast majority of people who bought 3E continued to play it, with 4E a large chunk bought and said "Not for me" and went back to 3.5, which in turn enabled Paizo to take over the world.

Now where I think 5E may be different is that they're trying to appeal to not only the folks that will play whatever the latest edition of the game is, but those folks who aren't in love with 3.x/Pathfinder or whatever version of the game they're playing. In other words, I think there's a significant number of D&D players who have either lapsed because they didn't like 4e and are tired of 3.x, and don't want to go retro, so are in a bit of a holding pattern around D&D. They aren't trying to dent the Pathfinder dedicated core, nor the true retro grognards - both of these groups are extremely faithful (or entrenched, depending upon how you look at it). But the dedicated 4E is much smaller, so you've got a few different medium sized pools to try to draw players from:

- Current or lapsed 4E players who are ready to move on
- Lapsed 3.x players who don't like 4E but want something new/simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder and don't to go retro; some of these folks haven't played in years
- Lapsed AD&D players who didn't come back with 3E but might be ready to now; consider this a "second wave" of returners; where the lapses Gen Xers, if they were going to return, came back with 3.x; the early Gen Yers - those that grew up on AD&D 2E - might be ready to give D&D another shot

And of course there's the Holy Grail of new recruits, but that's an unknown quantity. I think the key here is to create a simple enough game to give an easy-ish entry (a beginner's box set), but also provide something different enough from video games to offer a novel experience for Gen Texters.

I ramble, but my point is that 5E has a lot of pools to draw from and I think they're on the right track with a relatively simple and traditional core game. And of course everyone (well, almost everyone) will buy the core books - Pathfinder fans, retro-grogs, etc. The question is whether people will play it and I think many will. Why? Well, this comes to what I see as the one flaw in Paizo's otherwise excellent business plan: a core simple game. Not everyone wants Pathfinder or 4E complexity; many do, perhaps even most, but I think the tenor of late is that folks want added complexity as an option.

Nor will there likely be a 6th edition. Bad sales that retain a broad interest can be overcome with a new edition; general boredom and disinterest of a brand bred by two "failed" products in a row (at least in terms of public reception and WotC/Hasbro corporate reaction) is a much bigger hurdle, and I frankly don't think WotC has the talent or necessary skillsets to overcome that big of a hurdle. More importantly, I'm not convinced that the corporate suits have enough interest to even try. Add in the fact that Hasbro could care less about D&D if WotC can't get even get it off the ground, and you get the fact that for better or for worse, this is probably the "do or die edition" of the formal D&D brand. It either takes off from here, branching into other platforms, dragging the table top game with it, or it just dies, at least for the foreseeable future.

I hope you're wrong, or if you're wrong I hope that Hasbro is willing to give up the D&D license at some point and sell it in ten years to some uber-geek who made hundreds of millions on some revolutionary app and wants to reboot the whole thing. But I don't think D&D will die, or at least if it does there's always raise dead. And of course, as long as Pathfinder is alive D&D won't be dead.

 

[sunshadow21]

If my post was colored a bit by negativity, it's because so many people refuse to even think about the potential failure, and the risks that a second perceived failure in a row brings. It may or not end up being at bad, and I certainly hope it doesn't, but it could under the right circumstances. And regardless of what drove initial 4E sales, the fact that the eventual sales drop off coincided with the drop off of vocal complaints is hard to miss, especially since once the vocal complainers stopped, you almost never heard anything about 4E, save for a slight temporary increase around the release of Essentials. The fact that the complaints seemed to be the only thing you heard at all past the first few months of WotC promotion suggests that the length of the sales bump was indeed somehow tied to the attention the complainers were giving it. It's the same lack of attention that 4E received in general that concerns me with Next, and what makes the multi-platform options a chancier thing. Most of the things that people have mentioned as not needing a solid base game are simply carry-overs from when the game was solid; 4E never generated anything even close to Dragonlance or Drizzt or Baldur's Gate, and Next won't either if it has the same lackluster attention. As has been pointed out earlier, not even WotC's main D&D site had the initial release announcement, and the announcement barely caused a ripple outside of a few forums; granted, it wasn't that much of an announcement, but the lack of interest in even noting it should be concerning to WotC. They have their work cut out for them; poor sales won't necessarily limit other platforms from developing, but a severe lack of interest will.

 

[Umbran]

If my post was colored a bit by negativity, it's because so many people refuse to even think about the potential failure, and the risks that a second perceived failure in a row brings.

I am not sure what those risks are. What, really, is the risk? That Hasbro will make WotC stop producing the game? How much damage does that do to current players, who already have the books they need? Loss of electronic support? 4e players are losing that either way. Loss of adventure support? How many 4e games are currently driven by WotC's adventure publications?

What is it you have to lose, really, if WotC's new game, that folks aren't even playing yet, doesn't do well?

4E never generated anything even close to Dragonlance or Drizzt or Baldur's Gate, and Next won't either if it has the same lackluster attention.

That's okay, because Dragonlance, Drizzt, and Baldur's Gate were not successes because of the ruleset behind them. Those were *mainstream* successes, managing to reach people who did not play the game, didn't even know what number edition was behind the book or videogame. The particular rules themselves were mostly irrelevant to their success, honestly. Those were successes because Weis, Hickman, Salvatore, and BioWare made some decent stuff.

As has been pointed out earlier, not even WotC's main D&D site had the initial release announcement, and the announcement barely caused a ripple outside of a few forums; granted, it wasn't that much of an announcement, but the lack of interest in even noting it should be concerning to WotC.

The lack of interest seems *engineered* by WotC. The fact they didn't prominently post it is important to understanding it. That announcement didn't have an exact date attached to it, so it was of limited utility. A small contingent of folks (say, those who tend to go to GenCon) can use that information. And all those people have probably gotten the message, and will act accordingly. For the rest, the "Coming soon..." marketing ploy is very difficult to pull off successfully, especially with some six months or more before it actually hits the shelves. Keeping high interest that long could cost them a lot of money, and it isn't entirely possible to "burn out" the anticipation of the audience.

 

[sunshadow21]

Uncooperative keyboard led to an imcomplete post on accident.

 

[sunshadow21]

That's okay, because Dragonlance, Drizzt, and Baldur's Gate were not successes because of the ruleset behind them. Those were *mainstream* successes, managing to reach people who did not play the game, didn't even know what number edition was behind the book or videogame. The particular rules themselves were mostly irrelevant to their success, honestly. Those were successes because Weis, Hickman, Salvatore, and BioWare made some decent stuff.

The general public may not have been aware of the specific ruleset, setting information, or business climate of the company behind those rules and settings, but you can bet that Weis, Hickman, Salvatore, and Bioware were, and still are. There's a reason that 4E FR is being set back to something akin to it's pre 4E state, and a large part of it is that many people disliked those changes, and Salvatore was key among them; many, unlike Salvatore, chose to simply stop paying attention because of it and take their money and talent to more immediately profitable projects/companies. The same is true of most of 4E related material; most people, including those who could have created the next Drizzt, simply took their plans and their talents elsewhere because well known brand or not in the long term, in the short term, both the brand and WotC were in a slump, and not the best place to focus their energy. 5E will have the same problem if the table top version doesn't do well, made worse by the fact that 4E's legacy will do it no favors. A lack of general interest means that you aren't going to draw in new creators the same way you would if there was a lot of general interest, especially with companies like Paizo sitting right there, and a generally high level of competition for that talent. That lack of creators being willing to invest in the brand, especially in markets where that brand is not really all that strong already, is what limits the multi-platform approach. And I understand that this particular announcement was not intended to cause a lot of waves, but it was still a key announcement, and for it to be passed over in so blase a manner by both WotC and their intended audience does not make their next task of really selling it any easier.