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

[Manbearcat]

I don't think DNDNext is going down the wrong path for everyone. As I've said elsewhere recently, the system plays like:

1) This engine is made for the AD&D 2e play that many that I knew wanted when 3.0 came out. Its a cleaned up AD&D 2e with the approach of inverted NWPs for task resolution. This is in both spirit (eg you're rolling ability checks with narrow places where you have advanced acumen) and the resolution of the task and the assumed interpretation of the dice. A rulings not rules design intent expecting DM force but without the ridiculous amount of competing, incoherent sub-systems that directly conflicted with one another. Adventure based PC resource schemes and the task resolution system supports classic, open, serial exploration.
2) Simplicity and elegance of engine a la Moldvay Basic.
3) A fair amount of customization of PC build schemes but not of the level of 3.0/x/PF and 4e.

Obviously 1 should appeal to a decent chunk of AD&D 2e fans. That is not a small cross-section. I know of a great many of AD&D 2e fans who were hoping for something different from 3e...something much more like how 5e looks and plays.

Obviously 2 should appeal to B/X fans especially with the capacity for minor dials that are coherent with the core system.

3 makes me wonder how many 3.0 fans there are out there (not 3.x/PF). I think a great many 3.0 fans who have some burnout due to the overwhelming nature of feat/PrC bloat (but still want plenty of build customization) and many of the problems of high level 3.0 play may find the system to their liking.

So that leaves OD&D, 1e, 3.x/PF and 4e fans. There should be little trouble composing modules for hardcore OD&D and 1e dungeon crawling; dials to insert more SoD and make the game more swingy (removal of HD healing...easily enough done), solid tables for dungeon creation and random encounter generation, reaction tables, treasure/gold as XP (this may be the most difficult but is mandatory).

So I think there is a home in 5e for OD&D, 1e, B/X, AD&D 2e and burned out 3.0 gamers. What I currently do not see is whether they are going to be able to pull in the 3.x/PF crowd. Most PF players seem to be quite happy with the product but I'm far enough removed their culture that I can't know for sure. Lets assume a small minority of 3.x/PF players (25 % or 1 in 4).

As far as 4e players goes, I'm certain that there is a large cross-section that will not have a place in 5e as their primary game. I'll continue to play 4e for my D&D of choice and am working on an MHRP D&D hack of which I can use interchangably depending on mood and can use for quick adjudication of "color, walkthrough" combats. If 5e has the support for gamist 1e dungeon crawls, then I might use it once a year when my old buddies and I get together to run a classic megadungeon. However, there is surely a percentage of 4e players in there that will play the next system regardless because it has D&D on the tin. What percentage? Who knows. Lets assume a small minority of 4e players (25 % or 1 in 4).

If 25 % of 3.5/PF and 4e players buy into this and a fair majority of lapsed OD&D, 1e, B/X, AD&D 2e and burned out 3.0 gamers partake of 5e...I think that may be enough of a take home for Hasbro to say that "D&DN going down the right path for enough."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait. What's the difference between a superficial reason and a "real" reason? Are you trying to say that setting/lore-based reasons aren't somehow "real" reasons? That game mechanic reasons are "real" reasons?

No, but it is EASY to provide multiple different sources of lore. You can even use old lore from prior editions without any problem at all --what, at worst you need to come up with some stats for some monsters/gods/demons/whatever. I'm all for reprints too. You can pick up old 1e and 2e sources, the original MotP, etc. and go to town. Updated versions, cool too. I'll use my 4e MotP etc and maybe there will be a 5e one that talks about both or has some 3rd thing.

Lore is great, but it isn't exclusive.

 

[Raith5]

Obviously 1 should appeal to a decent chunk of AD&D 2e fans. That is not a small cross-section. I know of a great many of AD&D 2e fans who were hoping for something different from 3e...something much more like how 5e looks and plays.

Interesting analysis overall, but really how big is the 2e crowd (and how do we know how big this segment is I guess) compared with 4th edition for instance. I really liked 2e but it was a long time ago.

While I am increasingly doubtful that we can unite the tribes without compromising the underlying styles of the tribes, I really like the idea of a more accessible more basic like game so I can play with lapsed former gamers. I love 4th ed, and it is my preferred game, but I am not sure that rather heavy style of game is great for casual gaming. This is one thing I like about DDN.

 

[Li Shenron]

On thing I want to add, related to winning customers who aren't attracted by the rules, including first and foremost people who still haven't ever played D&D, or played long ago. We are too often thinking that the "customer base" is made of people who are already in the hobby, who already have a favourite edition, and who have already spent a fortune building up a collection of books. I cannot say what % of the sales these gamers cover, but I remember clearly that in the 3e days WotC said many times that a very important share of their sales came from the PHB alone. There will be new customers, starting from 5e, but how many?

So how do they encourage people to start playing D&D, if rules are irrelevant before you have already started?

Marketing is the answer of course, but personally I think that one huge part of this is done through the artwork of the new edition. They have to be very careful in choosing the general art style, because the "look & feel" delivered to someone opening up and browsing the PHB at the store will play a major part convincing them the game is worth trying. This may be a minor issue for someone who is already into D&D as a hobby and can ignore artwork and focus on the rules, but it's a very powerful dealmaker/dealbreaker for those who aren't, and have no way of guessing if the rules are good or bad until after they buy the game.

3 makes me wonder how many 3.0 fans there are out there (not 3.x/PF). I think a great many 3.0 fans who have some burnout due to the overwhelming nature of feat/PrC bloat (but still want plenty of build customization) and many of the problems of high level 3.0 play may find the system to their liking.

As a 3.0 fan I say that we're very few. Almost everyone upgraded to 3.5, and in fact 3.0 is not even considered by WotC an edition that could be reprinted, they consider 3.0 and 3.5 the same edition, of which only the latest "patch" is intended to be used.

 

[pemerton]

it is EASY to provide multiple different sources of lore. You can even use old lore from prior editions without any problem at all

<snip>

pick up old 1e and 2e sources, the original MotP, etc. and go to town. Updated versions, cool too. I'll use my 4e MotP etc and maybe there will be a 5e one that talks about both or has some 3rd thing.

It doesn't seem to be widely recognised that there is a one-page sidebar in the 4e MotP that sets out the Great Wheel in 4e mechanical terms. You don't even need to do the conversion yourself!

I sometimes wonder about the ratio of "superficial" to "real" reasons 4e seems to have lost people. I'm a "fan" of some really odd indie games (none of which sell very well). In fact, since none of the indie games I'm thinking of have had a whole lot of success at breaking a big market like D&D, I sometimes wonder if those types of mechanics are just not that appealing to the rpg audience as a whole. So while 4e taking steps in that direction was seen as good by rpg aficionados, those steps would make it less appealing overall. ::shrug:: I dunno for sure, but the way people toss around "metagame" and "dissociated" I tend to suspect that its more problematic than its given credit for.

I think 4e has some architectural issues that make that harder to do in some ways. Maybe not harder from a design point of view, but harder from a gamer psych PoV.

<snip>

I've been wondering lately about how much those narrative designs hurt 4e's popularity. I never thought of it personally, as a fan of narrative games, but I've been met several anti-4e players who disparage all that <mean, nasty, bad words> getting into D&D.

I think this is 100% true.

Ron Edwards on The Forge had this idea that if only RPGs went from simulationinst to more gamist or narrativist focused, they could be more popular. And when 4e came out, I assumed that WotC marketing must have done the research that showed that Edwards was right - because they produced a game that is (in my view, at least) the closet version of D&D to the sorts of non-simulationist games Edwards has in mind. (With an exception, noted out of deference to [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]: perhaps classic D&D, played in a certain way, offers a distnictive form of non-simulationinst gamism).

But it seems to have turned out that WotC marketing got it wrong, and that at least among current RPGers there really isn't so much demand for those sorts of mechanics, and that simulationist mechanics remain hugely popular even when (as I would see it) they put huge pressures on, and even distort or undermine, the basics of game play.

I actually did a serious read-through of the Essentials "Heroes" books at my FLGS a few weeks ago.

<snip>

If I decided I was ever going to PLAY in a 4e game, which one would I want? Did I need both "Heroes" books AND the Rules Compendium?

Essentials is such an obvious debacle on the publishing side it's really hard to know where to start.

With the good, first: the Rules Compendium and the MV are good, stand alone products.

But the GM's kit, while having some OK stuff digested from the two DMGs, has a massive rules overlap with the compendium.

And each Heroes book has (again) rules overlap, plus mechanics overlap with one another (eg repeated feats). Not to mention that there is a billion times too much flavour text for each class, each power, each feat etc. One thing I liked about the early 4e books is that they went back to Moldvay Basic levels of sparse, reasonably crisp flavour text for the game elements. (Race descriptions were a bit richer, but these carry a lot of cosmological weight in default 4e.)

It's really hard to know what they were thinking.

 

[delericho]

I think casual players who don't care much about the rules are right in the middle of those two groups--they're amenable to edition change, but they're not certain to change because their rules work fine and system doesn't matter much anyway. You do have to market to them, they just respond less to marketing based on how the rules are better.

Well, yes. But since they're not in either of the groups I listed, what I said about those groups doesn't apply.

 

[delericho]

If 25 % of 3.5/PF and 4e players buy into this and a fair majority of lapsed OD&D, 1e, B/X, AD&D 2e and burned out 3.0 gamers partake of 5e...I think that may be enough of a take home for Hasbro to say that "D&DN going down the right path for enough."

According to WotC's figures of a couple of years ago, they reckon there are about 6M active gamers worldwide, and about 20M lapsed gamers. So, if they can recapture the lapsed gamers in numbers, they'll be doing well.

The problem with making that their strategy is that by and large those lapsed gamers are lapsed for a reason, and recapturing them is not the easiest of tasks. Of course, that has been said before - a couple of years ago when Essentials, and the new Red Box, tried to do exactly that.

 

[Bluenose]

Did you think that WotC was more competent for the 3e launch or 4e? 3e's launch was after the Hasbro merger as well and it seemed to go much better than 4e's. Why? What has changed at WotC during that time?

The 3e launch was full of things that said how 2e AD&D had got things wrong (Devils and Demons, "Back to the Dungeon", etc) as well as digs at MMORPG players (If you're going to sit in your basement pretending to be an elf, do it with some friends). Gratuitous sneering at the people who are playing the wrong way seems to be the D&D teams preferred style of advertising their new editions.

Interesting analysis overall, but really how big is the 2e crowd (and how do we know how big this segment is I guess) compared with 4th edition for instance. I really liked 2e but it was a long time ago.

On DriveThruRPG/RPGNow the older products WotC are putting up are doing very well, and the reprints of the core books placed high on Amazon and got two restocks at my FLGS. Plus the OSR movement is supporting multiple versions of "D&D" games - partly, I suspect, a reason that they don't get as much notice as Pathfinder, since there's no dominant version to take the majority of the sales for people who are fans of a particular edition.

 

[jrowland]

Well, that's great except that it pretty much ignores everything that motivates a company or any thing that WotC has said about 5e. Other than that, good logic.

It doesn't go against "everything" that motivates a company. They are trying to increase market share for their brand. They are engaged in a customer focus group (the playtest) and getting feedback on what will increase market share. They are rolling out what they think the customers are saying. Apparently you don't like it. Should they not increase market share because you don't like it? THAT would be illogical. It could certainly fail, but it won't fail because you aren't happy with it.

 

[jrowland]

All people can do is vote with their wallet. I don't think WOTC would suddenly cancel 4e and make a new edition because of people giving criticism on the internet. They must have sales information none of us are privy too, because otherwise making Next is a stupid move. If their sales data is showing that 4e was a business failure (As Scott Rouse hinted at several times), it would actually be a worse move for them to develop a streamlined 4e, rather than try to get a good number of thier old fanbase back.

I think this is the truth, or close enough to it. Although I don't think sales suffer from lack of fans, or because 4E is bad/fail game. I think release their model was flawed. I think WotC actually heard the 3.X Splatbook revolt outcry and made a genuine attempt at providing books that were, in a sense, optional. As a DM I did not buy PHB2 or PHB 3. I did not buy the Dragonborn book, nor the Feywild book (although I hear its great). I didn't buy a lot of 4E books. I didn't need them, and because they were so narrow focused, they were optional. Add to it the Character Builder that allowed me to build characters from PHB2 or PHB3, and the problem is even worse!

In short, as a publishing model, it was flawed.

Pathfinder's success has less to do with the system than with the content. Write adventures and they play. Include narrative/fluff in publications. Make the books a pleasure to READ and people will buy. How many people have APs on their shelves they will likely never run, but enjoyed reading them anyway? THAT is how you sell books.

4E has great technical manuals for a great technical game. But beyond the core, they are largely unnecessary and almost all are not fun to read for the sake of reading (again I hear feywild one is a good read, but my ship has sailed).