Mercurius
Legend
I'm sure everyone at WotC is tired of hearing every nerd's two cents on what to do with D&D Next, and of course the likelihood of someone at WotC reading this is probably not much more than the needle-in-a-haystack chance that they'd do anything with it, but this is a discussion forum so here goes...
I tend to be overly verbose so I'll try to keep this relatively short and sweet and just focus on some core points. In my opinion, the main problem with 4E was not the rules, nor even the AEDU schema that so many dislike (although actually provides for fun game play). It was a combination of a new "Warcrafty" look and presentation that was off-putting to traditionalists, but underlying that--and a deeper problem--it was the lack of a cohesive story world to unite the community and galvanize the game. This second factor is what I wish to focus on, because I think it is a deeper, root concern - and the one that, more than anything else, led to a de-vitalization of the D&D game and community.
Let's take a look at our dear friends at Paizo; their success, in my opinion, is largely due to the Adventure Path and core setting formula that gives the fan base a shared story world to co-imagine within. Someone at Paizo had the brilliant notion that you don't need to make a ton of money on setting products because their purpose isn't to make a ton of money, but to strengthen the community and game itself, and thus have a secondary impact on sales of more lucrative products (This is, of course, speculation as I don't know Paizo's sales numbers, but humor me). In other words, Pathfinder's success is largely because of--and not in spite of--two aspects of the game that WotC has generally done poorly at, t least in recent years: settings and adventures.
Let's dial back a bit, almost thirty years and look at the early 80s. AD&D was a smash-hit, and it was partially because there were two general approaches to settings adventures. On one hand, you have the classic Greyhawk sandbox approach where TSR provided an example setting and tons of adventures and gaming groups everywhere made it their own, whether through using Greyhawk or designing their own settings. The second approach was the mega-campaign that was Dragonlance and brought a new kind of gaming to D&D, the "metaplot." I would call these two approaches--sandbox and metaplot--the two pillars of the D&D gaming spectrum, both of which need to be a nourished part of a thriving iteration of the game.
So here's a practical recommendation: Just as I've advocated for a two-pronged basic/advanced approach to Next's rules that allows people to play a simple core game or a more complex advanced one and remain compatible, I'd also recommend a two-pronged approach to settings:
1) Create a new setting to write a mega-campaign for ala Dragonlance. Do not re-hash an old setting for this or try to re-create the wheel of "5E Dragonlance" or something of that kind. Give the fans something new; not only does this inspire old fans but it gives the setting a living, fresh quality that will make it more appealing to new fans. Once this mega-campaign is complete, either start a new mega-campaign in the same world or move on with a new world. Keep the story going.
2) Develop a sandbox setting, whether an old or new one. And make it a sandbox, a timeline that doesn't update but remains eternally the same era. Think grey box Forgotten Realms...the best iteration of the Realms, which declined through various phases - Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. Write a continuing series of adventures that bring this world to life - these are the classic adventures that we all know and love from the 70s and early 80s, or the more recent Dungeon Crawl Classics-esque adventures.
So the key here is the focus on setting and story, what I'm calling "story world." Bring the game alive through a living setting (or two), AND nourish and encourage both of the two pillars of D&D game play.
Thank you for your time,
Mercurius
I tend to be overly verbose so I'll try to keep this relatively short and sweet and just focus on some core points. In my opinion, the main problem with 4E was not the rules, nor even the AEDU schema that so many dislike (although actually provides for fun game play). It was a combination of a new "Warcrafty" look and presentation that was off-putting to traditionalists, but underlying that--and a deeper problem--it was the lack of a cohesive story world to unite the community and galvanize the game. This second factor is what I wish to focus on, because I think it is a deeper, root concern - and the one that, more than anything else, led to a de-vitalization of the D&D game and community.
Let's take a look at our dear friends at Paizo; their success, in my opinion, is largely due to the Adventure Path and core setting formula that gives the fan base a shared story world to co-imagine within. Someone at Paizo had the brilliant notion that you don't need to make a ton of money on setting products because their purpose isn't to make a ton of money, but to strengthen the community and game itself, and thus have a secondary impact on sales of more lucrative products (This is, of course, speculation as I don't know Paizo's sales numbers, but humor me). In other words, Pathfinder's success is largely because of--and not in spite of--two aspects of the game that WotC has generally done poorly at, t least in recent years: settings and adventures.
Let's dial back a bit, almost thirty years and look at the early 80s. AD&D was a smash-hit, and it was partially because there were two general approaches to settings adventures. On one hand, you have the classic Greyhawk sandbox approach where TSR provided an example setting and tons of adventures and gaming groups everywhere made it their own, whether through using Greyhawk or designing their own settings. The second approach was the mega-campaign that was Dragonlance and brought a new kind of gaming to D&D, the "metaplot." I would call these two approaches--sandbox and metaplot--the two pillars of the D&D gaming spectrum, both of which need to be a nourished part of a thriving iteration of the game.
So here's a practical recommendation: Just as I've advocated for a two-pronged basic/advanced approach to Next's rules that allows people to play a simple core game or a more complex advanced one and remain compatible, I'd also recommend a two-pronged approach to settings:
1) Create a new setting to write a mega-campaign for ala Dragonlance. Do not re-hash an old setting for this or try to re-create the wheel of "5E Dragonlance" or something of that kind. Give the fans something new; not only does this inspire old fans but it gives the setting a living, fresh quality that will make it more appealing to new fans. Once this mega-campaign is complete, either start a new mega-campaign in the same world or move on with a new world. Keep the story going.
2) Develop a sandbox setting, whether an old or new one. And make it a sandbox, a timeline that doesn't update but remains eternally the same era. Think grey box Forgotten Realms...the best iteration of the Realms, which declined through various phases - Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. Write a continuing series of adventures that bring this world to life - these are the classic adventures that we all know and love from the 70s and early 80s, or the more recent Dungeon Crawl Classics-esque adventures.
So the key here is the focus on setting and story, what I'm calling "story world." Bring the game alive through a living setting (or two), AND nourish and encourage both of the two pillars of D&D game play.
Thank you for your time,
Mercurius
