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

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I said earlier, 3.5e lasted a couple months longer than 4e, June 2003 to December 2007 compared to June 2008 to May 2012, almost half a year longer. (And if we're counting 3.0 and 3.5 as separate editions for duration it might be fair to spit 4e into Classic 4e and Essentials.)

And right now 4e is the only unsupported edition. They're publishing adventures for 1e, accessories for 3e, and core books for 2e. And this summer we get a brand new adventure for 1e.

4e is unsupported? If you go look at WotC's product catalog it is FILLED with 4e products. Yes, they have REPRINTED a smattering of classic adventures and a book or two from each of several older editions as limited collector's releases. There were only 1000 sets of the 1e books for the memorial IIRC, that's hardly a massive number. Sure, they will release a new 1e adventure, that's hardly reviving the product. Meanwhile they will publish 24 4e adventures in Dungeon and several more that have been released for LFR and organized play (admittedly some of these are technically not 'published', but they are all available). So, June 2008 to August 2014, I make that 6 years. Anyway, it is a silly argument, but you do this all the time, spinning things in a way that diminishes 4e as a game, like you want to see it reduced to some sort of insignificance or make some point.

And right now they decided that two years with zero return on investment is better than continuing to publish material. And that the ROI on luxurybbooks people might already own and can find cheaper on eBay or Amazon is better than brand new 4e books.

The ROI on a book with NO editing or typesetting costs is pretty darn low! What do they have, new cover designs? For every dollar they make on that stuff they're bringing in $100 or $1000 from DDI alone. I'm sorry, I think you've stretched this whole hackneyed thing a bit too far.

Yes they are. However... the longer an edition runs the more profitable the core books become. After the initial print run you stop paying off the development, writing, art. Profit increases.
You want to keep reprinting the core rulebooks and producing content that feeds continued sales of those core books.

Meh, not really, once the volume falls below a certain amount the cashflow is too low and you can't make money anymore, you won't meet overhead. It costs money to maintain stock, sales force, distribution, returns, etc. Each sale gets more and more expensive even though the cost of the actual product sold may go down. In the case of a book it only goes down so much too, printing is a big expense.

And 2013 will be the fourth year of Pathfinder and thirteenth year of 3e. And it's still going strong. The core Rulebook did quite well for it's first three years with the fifth printing (in late 2011) being the largest yet: after two years they were selling more core rulebooks than their first year.

But again, we have little idea what the sales figures are for 4e books either. The problem with the comparisons people do with 4e and PF in particular is PF came out a full year after 4e, more actually. So what happened? 4e sold a TON of core books, and then, as always, sales tailed off and PF comes out with their core book, which outsells 4e AT THAT TIME. I know factually that the 4e PHB outsold the 3.5 and 3e PHBs, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume it has also outsold the PF core book, and may well have outsold all 3 combined.

Citation please?
That's a pretty bold claim considering 1e was the best selling edition (with only a dozen hardcover books over 10 years).

It was quoted in a piece on one of the industry blogs right around the DDN announcement, quoted from one of the 4e developers that was released at that time. You can accept it at face value or not, frankly I don't need to prove anything, but it was a very plain straightforward quote, which I BARELY paraphrased from memory. Of course I presume that the statement would be qualified "sold more than any other WOTC game book in history" though that would probably also count TSR since their numbers are a matter of public record. I doubt WotC devs are privvy to the sales figures of other companies.

I think WotC has learned that fewer splatbooks but bigger and broader appeal splatbooks are a better source of income, as are spatbooks that feed sales of the core rulebook.
And it sounds like they really want to focus on adventures, campaign worlds, and rules modules.

Sure, but the temptation to dip into the core book revenue stream one last time is almost irresistible. Nor is it at all clear what they will do after. Mike has stated what HE would like to do, but Mike is only in charge of R&D, not product strategy, sales, etc. In 5 years DDN is going to be where every edition is at 5 years, low sales. THAT will be when we see if they really changed strategy or not.

I'd say Strategically WotC is trying to change the tempo a bit, because they'd like to time things so that next time Paizo releases a core refresh that they can FOLLOW it. They learned that lesson good, its better to release your core books 6 mo after the other guy and cut out the tail of his sales and force him to burn money, like they are now.

Except Paizo doesn't sound like it's planning on releasing an update or new edition any time soon.

They've talked about it, and they will do it eventually. If DDN is timed correctly then WotC can drop at least a minor refresh on PF2's tail and you can bet they will try.

 

[pemerton]

Not without house ruling the game. And it would be nice to have a ballpark: i.e. X is too many and Y is too low, A is a high powered game and B is a low powered game.

4e actually DOES have a point buy, for ability scores BTW, you normally get 25 points, but nothing stops you from giving out more or less. You could couple this with starting at higher level for a more "godlike" experience (or just make the monsters weaker, pretty trivial in 4e's fully scaled system). Low power heroes could be accomplished in the opposite fashion, less points for ability scores, tougher monsters, fewer items, etc.

I'm with AbdulAlhazred on this one. If you decided to vary the points buy, it seems to me pretty easy to do so: increase everyone's stats by 1 or 2 (say, a 10 point increase), and they'll be as tough as PCs a level or so higher.

But it's also not clear why you would do this. Stats are part of 4e's scaling, and the stat gains relate to the opening up of feats at various levels, to the attack and defence scaling, etc. It's not clear what it adds to the game to change point buy rather than just toughening or weakening encounters.

I actually think 4e's stats and stat scaling are the single weakest mechanical element of the system. 4e would work better without stats in their current form at all - or, at least, decouple them from attacks and simply make them part of the skill system, somewhat along the lines of D&Dnext.

 

[Mark Oliva]

ICv2 has been showing Pathfinder as No. 1 and D&D as No. 2 for some time. The latest ICv2 report shows D&D dropping to No. 3, with the Star Wars RPG in 2nd place. To reverse that trend, D&D Next is going to have to be a whole lot better than the stuff that's been pumped out so far. An interesting start has degenerated into an attempt to regurgitate a lot of old ideas in new costumes. Unfortunately, D&D Next is turning into nothing so much as a big yawner.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], I just read the Mearls interview that you linked to.

Here are the bits that were most interesting to me:

What we began noticing was a segregation in our audience. In doing some informal research, one thing kept coming up again and again—what people seemed to value most in tabletop RPGs, stuff like flexibility and unpredictability, had taken a back seat to the rules . . .

Second edition AD&D largely kept those rules in place but emphasized worlds and the DM’s power to use rules as he/she sees fit. In other words, while the rules remained complex in practice they were fairly simple. . .

My belief is that RPG creators have lost touch with what makes our games so interesting. In the rush to create new rules, we’ve lost sight of the fact that the rules aren’t the point of the game. The interaction around the table, the give and take between players and DMs, the randomness supplied by a half-dozen people and the vagaries of the dice, are what make D&D, and RPG play in general, interesting. . .

[E]arly on there was concern that fights were boring. They were over too quickly, with most battles over in two or three rounds of fighting. . .

What we found through the playtest process, though, was that people like quick fights. They like them a lot, it turns out. A battle is part of the game, a point of resolution in the grander scheme of things, not the entire point of the game.​

I can agree with a lot of this. I don't think that rules are the point of RPG play. They're a means to an end. Battles are part of the game, not the entire point of the game.

But there are at least three ways in which this deviates from my own line of thought.

First, I don't see 2nd-ed style GM authority as any sort of solution or hallmark of halcyon days. My own experience is that it tends to lead, pretty natural, to mediocre railroads. And I believe that the Forge has pretty much worked out, in theoretica/system terms, why this is: namely, if the GM has sole (or overwhelming) authority on the permisssible introduction of elements into the shared fiction, then as a matter of logic the players' judgements on what the fiction should contain will become (close to) irrelevant.

Second, at the action resolution end of things (not PC build) 4e is lighter touch than 3E (in my view, at least) and pretty flexible and unpredictable (via p 42, single-PC and multi-PC combos, etc). And player- rather than GM-driven in much of that flexibility and unpredictability.

Third, there is no conflict between combat and roleplaying. Good design can make combat a site of character development, plot development etc. I think 4e achieves this, at least for my purposes. I'm not persuaded that D&Dnext does - as Mearls says, it is subordinating combat to something more like task resolution than conflict resolution.

These are three ways, then, in which D&Dnext seems to be going the wrong way for me at least.

One other bit of the interview I'll call out, too, but only because it's so frustrating:

Vancian magic is from Jack Vance’s excellent Dying Earth novels. . . a wizard must carefully memorize a spell. Once cast, the spell vanished from memory and must be memorized once more in order to be used again. . .

t’s actually a pretty solid way to try to strike a balance between a wizard and a warrior in a game. A wizard can perform miracles, but within limits that force some interesting challenges in a game.​

In a system in which there is no mechanical regulation of the passage of time, per day memorisation is not a limit that forces interesting challenges.

4e recognised this by using the extended rest as a common anchor for a whole suite of universal refreshes, thereby leaving it to the individual group to change the pacing for extended rests, or to give GM or players control over the passage of time, or to handlball it to the mechanics via skill challenges etc. So however the game was approached, intraclass balance would remain intact, though the balance of the party vs external challenges might vary.

D&Dnext seems to require a single solution to this problem, because of its assymetric design, but not to include any such solution.

 

[Mournblade94]

Sad thing for me the 1st time in 20 years I do not really care what happens to D&D. D&DN can be a smash hit or tank hard and either way no biggie for me. I grabbed 4th ed the day it landed at the game store, the downside for me was I did not read the web in the lead up to 4th ed.

4th ed sent me to Pathfinder, D&DN sent me to the retroclones. I do not need WoTC anymore, I have 400 D&D products in my house several of which have hardly been used. End of 2012 we broke out AD&D again and started playing that again and my d20 players enjoyed it (we have since converted to Myth and Magic a d20 2nd ed clone).

I probably will not buy D&DN at all. D&D to me is LG Paladins, the great wheel, the fluff and the lore etc and pseudo medieval/eurocentric/humanocentric. I'm not interested in powers, at wills, cantrips, the new magic system in D&DN, an excessive focus on balance, bounded accuracy, wuxia influence etc. Tolkein, Feist, Game of Thrones, Eddings, Terry Brooks and Shannara are worlds I look to. I do not mind variants if they are produced well (2nd ed Darksun, 3.5 Eberron). Knights in shining armor sticking lances into Dragons. I do not care what they put into a campaign setting but after the bloat of 3rd and 4th ed I want less classes, races etc so this appeal to everyone approach will not do it for me personally.

Lastly, there were the changes. While many of the mechanical changes were not popular, the lore charges really stand out. There is no shortage of role-playing games out there, especially with PDF publishing and the OGL. You can find the game just for you if you’re willing to look hard enough. There are likely many games more balanced than 4e or with equally tight tactical combat. What makes D&D stand apart is it’s legacy, its history and lore. Likewise, after thirty-odd years, people are invested in the lore. Their stories depend on it. Every monster or race or class might be someone’s favourite. While I was largely indifferent to the Blood War ending and the elimination of Yugoloths, I’m sure that wrecked someone’s campaign.
Again, every change made sense in a vacuum and were done for solid defensible reasons, but when taken as a whole it’s a heck of a lot of changes. It made D&D something else, something many players felt less of an attachment towards . And again, WotC’s fault, but mostly unrelated to the edition.


This is not a comprehensive list by any means, but it’s some of the big factors that hurt the game and sped its end.
And (again) most were unrelated to the actual gameplay.

I used to think I didn't need WOTC. Now I realize their quality due to the creators lay with the forgotten Realms. I am with WOTC for this with hope they will fix the realms, because I have been to talks with Salvatore and Greenwood, and I have alot of faith in them.

4e like Jester said above obliterated a lot of lore. That is nearly obliterating a mood or a feel which is nebulous and hard to describe. The 4e realms was part of the lore obliteration, and everything I read had Greenwood, and the other creators told what was happening by the developers.

NOW the creators are in charge of the story. Go to Geek and Sundry and find the never mind here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLf1hBUr9M4

This is the link where RA Salvatore reveals he had a plan to fix the realms way back in 2007 because the creative arm was not happy with the realm changes.

This throws me into enthusiasm frenzy for D&D NEXT because i also envision the lore coming back. I think so far they have a solid framework, but ultimately if the system fails, it should be an easy matter to convert Realms material to Pathfinder.

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage>
I can agree with a lot of this. I don't think that rules are the point of RPG play. They're a means to an end. Battles are part of the game, not the entire point of the game.

But there are at least three ways in which this deviates from my own line of thought.

First, I don't see 2nd-ed style GM authority as any sort of solution or hallmark of halcyon days. My own experience is that it tends to lead, pretty natural, to mediocre railroads. And I believe that the Forge has pretty much worked out, in theoretica/system terms, why this is: namely, if the GM has sole (or overwhelming) authority on the permisssible introduction of elements into the shared fiction, then as a matter of logic the players' judgements on what the fiction should contain will become (close to) irrelevant.

I agree, but...

I've recently been interacting with players who don't want or like having large amounts of narrative authority. Confusing to me, but there it is. They actually resent the amount of involvement that a game like FATE or even 4e demands. I'm not sure what to do about that vis-a-vis game design. I mean, if a large number of players don't want narrative authority beyond "My guy does <x>" and are averse to authoring items outside their characters' decisions...it seems to me that that dumps all that narrative power into the DMs hands or lets the fiction flounder. Obviously I have no idea how much of the audience leans one way or the other on this axis, but I'm starting to get the impression that players who want more narrative control are a smaller minority than you and I might wish or hope.

Third, there is no conflict between combat and roleplaying. Good design can make combat a site of character development, plot development etc. I think 4e achieves this, at least for my purposes. I'm not persuaded that D&Dnext does - as Mearls says, it is subordinating combat to something more like task resolution than conflict resolution.

I think Mearls was simply saying that many people found that the WotC editions were slowing combat more than needed/wanted. While there may be no conflict between combat and roleplaying, anything dominating the session-time runs the risk of becoming the only site of character/plot development. Then there's folks like me, for whom all the X's and O's of 4e combat tend to drop us out of "story" mode and into "game" mode. I personally don't think that speedy combat in any way detracts from its ability to be a site of character/plot development.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

ICv2 has been showing Pathfinder as No. 1 and D&D as No. 2 for some time. The latest ICv2 report shows D&D dropping to No. 3, with the Star Wars RPG in 2nd place. To reverse that trend, D&D Next is going to have to be a whole lot better than the stuff that's been pumped out so far. An interesting start has degenerated into an attempt to regurgitate a lot of old ideas in new costumes. Unfortunately, D&D Next is turning into nothing so much as a big yawner.

Right, if it was my product I'd certainly be interested in doing that. I just think people fail to understand that a comparison of a PF core book that was out for 3 months with a 4e core book that had been out for 18 months was pretty meaningless. The notion that PF even approached 4e in total sales volume over the life of each product is impossible to support (of course the reverse is equally impossible to establish). Truthfully I think the whole industry is just larger and more diverse and people play more different types of games and there are many many more high quality games available than even 10 years ago. The days when D&D is 75 or 80% of the industry solid year after year are just gone. This in a sense may BE the primary motivation with DDN. Mike and WotC know that the Sun has set on Gary's empire and it will not rise again. They can still do quite well, but its effectively time to sunset, release one final heavily retrospective capstone that they can sell to all D&D fans and simply put out a little support for that plus reprints forever, dropping a few settings and adventures now and then to feed the paperback sales and perhaps video games. It won't be a really big seller, but people will still play and the cost of maintaining the product line will be minimal. Every 5 or 10 years they can release a slightly refreshed core book perhaps but the aim will be basically to be the Monopoly of RPGs, old hat but a perennial favorite that has a following and which kids and adults can trot out once in a while for some evening fun. The more advanced modes will work fine for more dedicated RPGers who happen to hanker for some nostalgia, but never again will there be really new things added to the game, etc. You'll either like it as-is or not play it, DDN will be the final word in the D&D saga.

 

[Ratskinner]

Sad thing for me the 1st time in 20 years I do not really care what happens to D&D. D&DN can be a smash hit or tank hard and either way no biggie for me. I grabbed 4th ed the day it landed at the game store, the downside for me was I did not read the web in the lead up to 4th ed.

I kinda feel the same way. I'm hanging around more from a spectator's point of view, rather than as an interested participant.

 

[Mournblade94]

One could argue the success of the 4th ed book was due to the goodwill and brand name 3rd ed had. Once people had another option or realized it was not for them they walked.

That is absolutely true I think.

I was very enthusiastic for 4e, mostly because of Star Wars SAGA. When we started playing the system it was apparent the game we were sold was different than the one we have been playing for years. then Paizo cam along, and solved the problem.

It was amazing to me how they could make 4e sound so good, hype somthing up, and prove so disappointing. I think 4e fans are much luckier than the 3rd ed fans were because now they can see what they are getting with the playtest. If WOTC had put out a 4e playtest, I would have been able to abandon ship before the game was released.

At least everyone knows about what we are getting with the playtest. I felt 4e was very much a bait and switch to many fans.

 

[Ratskinner]

The days when D&D is 75 or 80% of the industry solid year after year are just gone. This in a sense may BE the primary motivation with DDN. Mike and WotC know that the Sun has set on Gary's empire and it will not rise again. They can still do quite well, but its effectively time to sunset, release one final heavily retrospective capstone that they can sell to all D&D fans and simply put out a little support for that plus reprints forever, dropping a few settings and adventures now and then to feed the paperback sales and perhaps video games. It won't be a really big seller, but people will still play and the cost of maintaining the product line will be minimal. Every 5 or 10 years they can release a slightly refreshed core book perhaps but the aim will be basically to be the Monopoly of RPGs, old hat but a perennial favorite that has a following and which kids and adults can trot out once in a while for some evening fun. The more advanced modes will work fine for more dedicated RPGers who happen to hanker for some nostalgia, but never again will there be really new things added to the game, etc. You'll either like it as-is or not play it, DDN will be the final word in the D&D saga.

I share this suspicion. Although, I'm not sure about "final". Things could change in unpredictable ways in 10-15 years that lead to D&D being brought out of retirement for an overhaul. Nonetheless, I've referred to D&DN as the "Farewell" edition.