D&D 5E D&D Next will succeed or die on the basis of its digital apps.

[Kobold Stew]

So there are a lot of different conversations going on in this thread, and most people aren't actually talking to each other. Let's identify and separate three major threads:

1. Should WOTC offer core materials in electronic, searchable forms that present a reasonable alternative to owning books?

In favour: it's the future. Against: (perceived) IP protection. My view: Yes, this should be available.

2. Should WOTC offer on a subscription basis cool tools alongside Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions?

In favour: a good business model for Wizards, that provides a keen audience willing to invest in new material that may eventually be adapted into books. Cool tools might be usable at the table (dice rollers, etc.) or not, but are not needed to play. It's an alternative to print-magazines, and is clearly viable. My view: yeas, this should be available.

I really do not think either of these is controversial, but separating them shows how they can triple subscriptions to Dragon, but the game be losing players, with the same statistic being used on both sides. However:

3. Should WOTC require subscriptions to perform basic functions that will be required of all players of the game?

In favour: all players will continue to invest (or know someone who does); funding model parallels MMOs, and Wizards want the money in a competitive game market. Against: greater barrier for entry, more likely to exclude new and young players. This is where the 4e character builder falls: it's available only by DDI subscription, and building characters is exponentially more onerous without it. From what I see, no one on this thread has been part of an ongoing 4e campaign without at least one person subscribing. This is where there actually seems to be disagreement.

My view: For me, the barriers to entry are real: I don't want to introduce my son's friends to a game that they need commit money to on an ongoing monthly basis. Buy a PHB? Sure. But not beyond that. As a result, we often choose other games. We're having a great time playtesting DDN, but once a tool requires us to pay (in addition to the up-front costs of buying the books), then I am going to want to push other games.

Not everyone will agree with this view, and there are a lot of indications that DDN is targeting lost old players, rather than new ones; players in their 20s rather than in their teens, etc.

But there's no necessary relationship between these three questions. (and of course there are other possibilities: where a subscription would include all the content of the core materials, so that a monthly subscription would mean you don't need to pay upfront for core rulebooks? That would be fine. But that will not be thw ay they go, I'm pretty sure.)

 

[iwarrior-poet]

So there are a lot of different conversations going on in this thread, and most people aren't actually talking to each other. Let's identify and separate three major threads:

1. Should WOTC offer core materials in electronic, searchable forms that present a reasonable alternative to owning books?

In favour: it's the future. Against: (perceived) IP protection. My view: Yes, this should be available.

2. Should WOTC offer on a subscription basis cool tools alongside Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions?

In favour: a good business model for Wizards, that provides a keen audience willing to invest in new material that may eventually be adapted into books. Cool tools might be usable at the table (dice rollers, etc.) or not, but are not needed to play. It's an alternative to print-magazines, and is clearly viable. My view: yeas, this should be available.

I really do not think either of these is controversial, but separating them shows how they can triple subscriptions to Dragon, but the game be losing players, with the same statistic being used on both sides. However:

3. Should WOTC require subscriptions to perform basic functions that will be required of all players of the game?

In favour: all players will continue to invest (or know someone who does); funding model parallels MMOs, and Wizards want the money in a competitive game market. Against: greater barrier for entry, more likely to exclude new and young players. This is where the 4e character builder falls: it's available only by DDI subscription, and building characters is exponentially more onerous without it. From what I see, no one on this thread has been part of an ongoing 4e campaign without at least one person subscribing. This is where there actually seems to be disagreement.

My view: For me, the barriers to entry are real: I don't want to introduce my son's friends to a game that they need commit money to on an ongoing monthly basis. Buy a PHB? Sure. But not beyond that. As a result, we often choose other games. We're having a great time playtesting DDN, but once a tool requires us to pay (in addition to the up-front costs of buying the books), then I am going to want to push other games.

Not everyone will agree with this view, and there are a lot of indications that DDN is targeting lost old players, rather than new ones; players in their 20s rather than in their teens, etc.

But there's no necessary relationship between these three questions. (and of course there are other possibilities: where a subscription would include all the content of the core materials, so that a monthly subscription would mean you don't need to pay upfront for core rulebooks? That would be fine. But that will not be thw ay they go, I'm pretty sure.)

Not sure I agree with your summation of the thread. The focus was the need for WoTC to develop tools specifically for mobile platforms like iOS and Android. Their ease of use would help players and DM's to manage complex combat or other rule situations while maintaining good group interaction. A comprehensive character generator and combat manager available at D+D Next's launch would go a long way to keeping old players and bringing in new ones.

I don't think anyone believes WoTC should REQUIRE subscriptions to perform basic functions. Paper, pencil and dice should always be an option. I just think that ignoring mobile platforms will almost ensure a greatly reduced interest in the new version.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't think anyone believes WoTC should REQUIRE subscriptions to perform basic functions. Paper, pencil and dice should always be an option. I just think that ignoring mobile platforms will almost ensure a greatly reduced interest in the new version.

It's first explicitly stated in post 26. But if you read the thread, it's implicit in many of the posts: including yours. You want cool tools to make awkward or difficult combats go smoothly, etc.

I'm saying if the combat system is awkward and bulky, and electronic tools are required for smooth play, the attraction for younger new players is gone. "Oh, they can play Basic," one might think condescendingly. Again, the attraction for new players is gone.

Really, I don't see anyone saying that there should be cool tools at the table (my point 2) that aren't usable on devices one has at the table. Really, that's a trivial distinction once you are wanting the electronic tools in play. But yes, you are right that those who care about my point 2 may mention iOS and Android.

 

[delericho]

It's first explicitly stated in post 26. But if you read the thread, it's implicit in many of the posts: including yours. You want cool tools to make awkward or difficult combats go smoothly, etc.

As the author of post #26, I feel I should direct you to also read post #31. My position is exactly as iwarrior-poet stated it: a player should never require a tool in order to play the game. But it is very likely that WotC will require the regular revenue associated with subscriptions in order for D&D to survive as a tabletop game.

Therefore, it is incumbent on them to develop tools that are not required, but which are so desirable that a great many people choose to subscribe in order to get them. Which could be a combat manager, as you suggest, or could be as comparitively simple as an easily-referenced Compendium. But they'll need something.

I'm saying if the combat system is awkward and bulky, and electronic tools are required for smooth play, the attraction for younger new players is gone.

Not necessarily, due to scaling. As a DM (3.5e), I can handle a combat with about 5 PCs and about 5 distinct enemy types. (I can handle more foes, provided many are copies - for example, a dozen identical orcs is no problem.) Beyond that limit, my ability to keep all the required data organised is limited, the game slows down, and it becomes a chore.

Give me a combat manager app, though, that will do all the condition tracking for me, inform me when the dragon's breath weapon has refreshed, or what have you, and suddenly my ability to handle things increases dramatically. The computer takes the strain, so I don't have to.

The thing is, although 3.5e does indeed have a fairly cumbersome combat system, the same algebra applies to any system - the thresholds might be different, but eventually the sheer amount of data becomes intolerable.

And so, 5e could conceivably create a combat system that is attractive to new players, and which is tuned for fairly small-scale battles. Then, provide a Combat Manager app that makes it easier... but which is very definitely a "nice to have" rather than a massive boon at this point.

But as the game goes on, and groups want to move to ever more elaborate combats... that's when the Combat Manager really starts to show its advantages. Indeed, at that point it may become a necessity for combat to run smoothly. (And yet, it's not required - you can do all this by hand... it's just that you really wouldn't want to.)

But in that latter stage, the desirability/need for a Combat Manager app has absolutely no bearing on new players, because new players will be starting with those small scale combats where it doesn't apply.

 

[iwarrior-poet]

Well put Delericho. I would say more, but I am on my iPhone. (Heh)

 

[Kobold Stew]

Good -- then we agree:

WOTC should not create apps that will be necessary for ordinary players to play the game.

I apologize if you feel I misrepresented your post in particular. You mention 3.5, which was in this situation: no subscriptions required, but possibly advantageous. 4E was not -- and the barrier there represented by the barrier to access materials such as the character generator was and is significant -- that's the third thread I identified. The problem is it's bundled with Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions (the second thread), and so people argue past one another.

My point is that in failing to distinguish these as three separate things (and there are possibly more), it's very easy to muddy assumptions about other issues.

 

[delericho]

Good -- then we agree:

WOTC should not create apps that will be necessary for ordinary players to play the game.

Absolutely.

I apologize if you feel I misrepresented your post in particular.

No worries.

4E was not -- and the barrier there represented by the barrier to access materials such as the character generator was and is significant

Ah. Now, here I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, for the simple reason that the Character Generator (plus, actually, the e-mags) is neither required, either in fact or as a practical matter. There are many, many groups that play quite happily without ever having had access to the electronic tools.

In fact, the 4e Character Generator is almost exactly what I think WotC should be doing - a tool that you can manage without, but which is so convenient and useful (and at a low enough price point) that you wouldn't want to.

YMMV, of course.

Edit: it's also worth noting, of course, that the Character Builder wasn't even available at launch - initially, we all had to manage without! That doesn't seem to have unduly damaged 4e - the issue seems to be one of ongoing sales not being high enough, rather than it being a failure from the get-go.