D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[adembroski]

It's axiomatic that if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

I think D&DN is heading down this road.

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd. I realize there are OD&D, 1E, and 2E players out there, but I find that in most arguments, they're gonna come down on the side of the 3rd Edition folks. They'll remain united so long as the 4E people are a threat.

So, D&DN... the Great Uniter.

What the 3E/PF player is supposed to see is a return to 3E inspired combat mechanics, the exit of grid-combat-is-required, a renewed emphasis on non-combat abilities and skills, class flexibility, and setting flexibility.

What the 4E player is supposed to see is a continued commitment to game balance, especially where combat is concerned, clear and well defined roles within a party, action oriented design with little downtime, etc. etc. etc....

Sadly, what I'm seeing over on the Wizards boards is that 3E folks are unhappy with things like dissociative self-healing mechanics (hand waved through the use of "healing kits"), 4E people are unhappy with open ended interpretation of what a class represents (there's a thread claiming that "fighter is not a class", which was the first time I realized that the 3E and 4E crowds have a fundamentally different understanding of what a class represents). There's a lot more, but just two examples.

I made the comment in one thread that I believed that Wizards has an opportunity with D&DN to either A.) win back the 3e crowd or B.) retain and grow the 4e crowd, but it would be difficult to do both, and on their current path, they'll accomplish neither. It was sort of off-hand at the time and I didn't really think about it before I posted it, but it got several replies in agreement and spawned a bit of a side conversation on its own.

The more I think about it, the more I think the very mentality that the design team is taking is going to doom the product. As a 3E guy myself, I actually feel like the best thing Wizards can do at this point is re-up on the ideas that produced 4th Edition and grow that market rather than attempting to bring two disparate groups together and missing the mark with both. Accept that the Fantasy RPG market has been divided into two markets, and target the one you already have, make them your own, and let Paizo pick up the remainder.

I don't know why I felt the need to post this. I honestly think much of what I've said is self-evident. It's just... I think the culture of gaming is better served if Wizards doesn't try to unify the clans, so to speak. I would also hate to see the existing 4e crowd left without a supported game in favor of a somewhat watered down version that doesn't really serve anybody but the bean counters at Hasbro who don't understand why a single game can't please everyone.

 

[innerdude]

Totally agree.

I absolutely think they're better off making a better 4e, than they are trying to make a "kinda, sorta" anything else.

4e was a clear move to section off a new "space" outside of the long-standing "traditional" D&D. This likely has a lot to do with the OGL, because with the OGL, no one really "owns" the old "traditional" space any longer anyway. Anyone can be in that "space" now, with any modicum of effort and absolutely zero legal repercussions. If I'm Wizards, why not recognize that right or wrong, they actually DID carve out a new niche with 4e, one that's still relatively protected from outside competition, and delivers an experience wholly unique to itself? Why not let the "old guard" continue to fight it out amongst themselves about creating the "perfect retro-clone," when Wizards can move forward with a proven commodity, even if that commodity failed to serve much of the previous customer base?

Besides which---who's to say that with a better baseline 4e "chassis," some of the 3e crowd might not wander back over the fence anyway? Make a few changes here and there, modularize some of the more problematic "powers" and healing options, and let the 4e players have their cake and eat it too, while giving those who didn't migrate more reason to try it? (The cynic in me wants to say, "They already tried it . . . it's called D&D Essentials, and it was one massive pile of FAIL." But I don't think that's entirely fair. I think Wizards should have just gone ahead and made Essentials 4.5e, and given 4e the real "reboot" that it needs--even proponents of 4e have gone on record saying that a fully cleaned up, streamlined, 4e ruleset would be of interest to them.)

Anyway, the only reason not keep moving down the 4e track is if WotC is absolutely convinced, based on sales knowledge that none of us has, that 4e is basically a sunk cost at this point. If they're truly better off with the current D&DN strategy, then more power to them. In all likelihood, this may be the most cogent reasoning. If 4e really was that toxic to ongoing profitability to the D&D product line, then as a company they'd want to move past it as quickly as possible.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd.

I think you wrote very reasonable things and interesting points, but you also should expect that there will be a 5E crowd* too, and it won't be just made of 3E or 4E people changing edition. After all, before 4E there was no 4E crowd... and there are lots of youngsters who started with 4E and think that that's the only "true" way of playing D&D.

*by that I mean also that there will be previous 3E and 4E players/DMs who will not look at 5E as a mere improvement on 3E/4E but are looking forward to something entirely new or different.

I know, because I am one of them! I am a 3e-tard who is not currently willing to run 3e games because I cannot afford anymore the time and effort required by system mastery, and for a long list of reason I don't enjoy 4e. Thus I am not interested in a 5e that is just an improvement of either previous edition.

 

[pemerton]

If 4e really was that toxic to ongoing profitability to the D&D product line, then as a company they'd want to move past it as quickly as possible.

My understanding - but I could be wrong - is that they are trying to take D&D into what is, for Hasbro, a level that makes it viable from the internal management point of view. I thought that level might be something like $50m or $100m per year.

For continuing 4e to be irrational from WotC's point of view, it doesn't have to be toxic to profitability - just incapable of reaching the desired level.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd. I realize there are OD&D, 1E, and 2E players out there, but I find that in most arguments, they're gonna come down on the side of the 3rd Edition folks. They'll remain united so long as the 4E people are a threat.

Please note that many (most?) old-school players are very much not fans of 3e; so calling it "the 3e crowd" isn't really accurate.

 

[Raith5]

I don't know why I felt the need to post this. I honestly think much of what I've said is self-evident. It's just... I think the culture of gaming is better served if Wizards doesn't try to unify the clans, so to speak. I would also hate to see the existing 4e crowd left without a supported game in favor of a somewhat watered down version that doesn't really serve anybody but the bean counters at Hasbro who don't understand why a single game can't please everyone.

A year ago I thought they had a chance of creating a unified game but now I agree with you. And it is not just about my game, I can just continue to play 4th ed and be happy. It is, as you say, about the hobby. People posting in these forums do so because they are interested in the history and the future of the hobby. I think the best thing to keep the game going would be to improve and support what exists, rather than create something that falls between stools.

While I like the DDN idea of creating a broad game which supports wider styles than the somewhat narrow stylings of 4th ed. Also while I think they made character design really engaging with back grounds and specialties and they nailed some of the core character archetypes, I think the underlying game mechanics are fairly dull. I just think there are too many 4th ed ideas that are far better than what is in DDN. A lot of good design ideas have been left on the floor with the move from 4th to DDN. I just love static defenses where you can have attacks - including melee attacks - against defences other than AC, utility powers for all classes, second wind for non magical healing, wands and holy symbols +2 etc. Good ideas with nowhere to go!

 

[delericho]

I think you can roughly divide the D&D community into two main camps; the 3E/PF crowd and the 4E crowd.

That would be incorrect. There is also the pre-3e crowd, which is actually larger than either of the other two. It's just that large chunks of that group are not on the internet, and so we don't hear much from them. Of course, they're also (generally) happy with what they've got, so for WotC to target them at all may be a mistake.

I made the comment in one thread that I believed that Wizards has an opportunity with D&DN to either A.) win back the 3e crowd or B.) retain and grow the 4e crowd, but it would be difficult to do both, and on their current path, they'll accomplish neither.

You might well be right about this, but what is the alternative? If they go for a 3e-derived 5e then they'll get some of the 3e people to switch and might get some of the PF people to switch back. Oh, and they might get some of the 4e crowd to switch - those who follow whatever says D&D on the cover. If they go for a 4e-derived 5e then they'll get many (not all) of the 4e people to switch, and they may get a very few 3e/PF converts.

Either way, it's highly unlikely that 5e would have more fans than either Pathfinder or 4e does currently. And if that is the case, they might as well shut up shop now - D&D is dead.

What they're doing now may well not work. But as far as I can see, they have to take that risk.

 

[adembroski]

Please note that many (most?) old-school players are very much not fans of 3e; so calling it "the 3e crowd" isn't really accurate.

I absolutely understand that... however, the numbers are such that the early edition crowd isn't a significant enough demo to have a voice of their own, and in most cases, they'll agree conceptually with the 3rd edition fan over the 4th edition fan.

The point can, and often is, made that while OD&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and 3rd Edition are related games with somewhat, perhaps even vastly different, methods for resolution, 4E is a fundamentally different kind of RPG. I could have used "old school" vs. "new school", but I get the sense that pre-3E fans are rather protective of the term and don't like 3E fans being categorized as such.

I began play with 1st Edition. My first D&D product was the Dragonlance Adventures hardcover, and I to this day own a nearly pristine copy of Unearthed Arcana (2nd printing) that I still pull out and browse on a weekly basis. I consider myself an old school gamer despite using a new school system (making 3.0 the dividing line).

Personally, I think the only D&D system that deserves to be disavowed is 2.5 (aka Skills and Powers... wow, what a disaster).

 

[Bluenose]

I absolutely understand that... however, the numbers are such that the early edition crowd isn't a significant enough demo to have a voice of their own, and in most cases, they'll agree conceptually with the 3rd edition fan over the 4th edition fan.

Something I found fascinating in a conversation in my FLGS was that they sell more OSR material than they do Pathfinder material (4e has almost no new material coming out, and it's new material that sells best). However, it's split over six or more systems, so none of them individually approach PF numbers. Their thought was that if Next was suitably OSR, it could pick up most of that group and be pretty successful.

 

[adembroski]

That would be incorrect. There is also the pre-3e crowd, which is actually larger than either of the other two. It's just that large chunks of that group are not on the internet, and so we don't hear much from them. Of course, they're also (generally) happy with what they've got, so for WotC to target them at all may be a mistake.

If that's the case, then they're not relevant to this discussion and my categorization is apt

You might well be right about this, but what is the alternative? If they go for a 3e-derived 5e then they'll get some of the 3e people to switch and might get some of the PF people to switch back. Oh, and they might get some of the 4e crowd to switch - those who follow whatever says D&D on the cover. If they go for a 4e-derived 5e then they'll get many (not all) of the 4e people to switch, and they may get a very few 3e/PF converts.

Either way, it's highly unlikely that 5e would have more fans than either Pathfinder or 4e does currently. And if that is the case, they might as well shut up shop now - D&D is dead.

That might well be the case, I'm afraid.

What they're doing now may well not work. But as far as I can see, they have to take that risk.

They have to do something. They've lost market share. They're a publicly traded company. Lost market share is untapped potential to an investor, and not pursuing it is not an option. A privately owned company can afford to stand pat, so long as the bottom line is far enough black to satisfy the principle. A publicly traded company must continue to expand the bottom line, because if an investor buys in at X dollars a share and the company stays at X dollars a share, the investor is gaining nothing. This is the problem with public trading... every publicly traded company will eventually out grow itself.

Now, WotC is a small fish in the Hasbro pond by investor standards, but they're still expected to deliver an ever growing revenue stream. For that reason, they're being pressured to produce a game with wider appeal. Hasbro suits, who sadly don't know any better (the weakness of publicly traded companies dabbling in artistic fields is that having an MBA doesn't make you an expert in the particular art, though, in my experience, it certainly makes you think you are) read (but fail to understand) one groups complaints and think they can somehow unify the players (after all, they were unified once, right? Right?).

Personally, I think if WotC were not owned by a publicly traded company, they'd be taking a much different approach, and they'd be more successful as well. But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.