D&D 5E Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?

I stand by my sig. I also maintain that the "fracturing" of the fanbase was a good thing, stupid internet edition warring aside. Wizards now has to compete - not just with Pathfinder, but also Savage Worlds. People checked out indies and retro clones just for the sake of checking them out.

I like the design philosophy driving 5e's developement, the open playtesting, and the willingness of the design team to actually listen to their testers. They've already started making changes based off of constructive critisism.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It seemed like a good idea to have the OSR, 3E/ Pathfinder and 4E players sharing the same table. WOTC probably needs it to happen. 5E faces a very strong headwind of players that look at their current game(s) of choice and say, "I'm good." Some of these public playtests could get chippy, RPGers often use civility as a dump stat.

This is how I look at it-

While that has been discussed, I think more the expectation is that each table will play it's own style. I really think the whole inclusiveness and modules and such for Next is for that reason.

They let loose the Genie with the OGL. Then moved to 4th when many players were not ready. So up came OSR games and Pathfinder. I really think what Wizards is looking for, as a customer base, is the core that play the current edition of D&D because it's the current edition of D&D, then grab a percentage of players of those others (4E, Pathfinders, OSR games) then they grow their consumer base. This much is pretty obvious from a business standpoint. That is the only way for them to keep D&D alive - it has to find more customers - players/GMs that buy their product.

That is what Hasbro wants, and WoTC is trying to do.

With that as the basis - they designers know the business aims of the product of D&D - now they, the game people, not the business people look for a way to do that. The modularity, dials and switches make the game adjustable to exactly the kind of play a group may want. Difficult goal, but I think it is achievable.

So 4 tables may be playing D&D - and while the characters could play in each others game, the actual play at the table would be vastly different - one doesn't really use skills much, or do much customization, and is all Theater of the Mind, another is very player choice oriented and grids all the combat with a tactical focus.

Technically the same game, but the end result play is vastly different.

With the ability to create the game experience you want at each table there is a greater chance for greater sales.

Great that is what the business side wants - but what does it bring to players?

  • Some may find that D&DN is better and bringing the old feel than the current game they play - they are already playing a game but it may not be exactly what they want.
  • Some may want the faster supplement train that WotC usually have than the slower rate than they may have.
  • Adventures may be more plentiful (I hope on that one).
  • Perhaps a player plays two games (as people that play in a 4E and a Pathfinder games) - this would give them one base game with the same very basic ruleset but different gameplay will make it easier to learn and play.
  • Similar to above, if a group decides to play a new campaign with a different feel, they can add/subtract modules moves dials and switches and play - without learning a new base ruleset.
  • Some people like to tinker and adjust things and want to play with those options.
  • The modular nature allows the Game Designers to come up with really cool options - that because the base system is designed for the modularity - make it much easier to design for and add into play. This could allow for 3.5/Essentials ect without the need to invalidate anything that came before.

To be honest, as late as it is, this may be difficult for them to pull off - Pathfinder is really set in it's place, and the OSR games have got passionate adherence. If they had announced this when the Essentials came out, and the next two years of 4E was the lame duck era, rather than starting now - a lot of those OSR games would not have the traction with players they do. It will be a tougher sell.

Much like Dancy's network externalities and the OGL, the modularity and "1 game to rule them" has 2 big purpsoes - make the game that is being produced the one that most people play, and the came can be made better with simple add ins to rules (an opportunity lost by WotC by not adapting any good 3rd party OGL stuff).


tl;dr - Wizards and Hasbro is trying to recapture players playing D&Desque games with a game that can recreate different feels at different tables. So yes it needs to be the 1 game to rule them all.
 

Need, no. Want, yes.

I want something that will be the one game to rule them all, since it increases the hobby. Simply put, if D&D does well, WotC does well, which means they are more likely to leverage D&D into things like movies and video games.
 

It is certain that we D&D players live in "interesting times."

Yep - and I think you sig "Does not have an expiration date" is also a big factor.

Games come and go, editions fail and rise. And many players no longer worry about whether a game is in print anymore. They have their group, and play the game they like. The need for current support is not a important, I think, to as many people as previously, which makes selling the new edition harder.

I play 5E HERO, and a mix of Pathfinder (currently supported) with old 3.5 stuff for my 2 games. Hero has moved to 6th, and even though PF is currently supported, much of what I use is 3.5 stuff, and if PF wasn't around, I'd be playing 3.5 (PF is just convenience for me). So whether the current game is in print is not an issue for me. I wasn't like that 15 years ago.
 


In short, no. It's a game. We don't need D&D5E like we need sustainable energy or cures for cancer. Obviously, people who play D&D in some form now will continue to play, with or without a new edition, and will continue to teach their kids and their friends, with or without a new edition.

With that said: I want a 5e, and think it would be good not only for the hobby in general, (and good for WotC financially), but also for me personally.

Why: I want to play D&D with my friends, first and foremost. I want my friends to play in the same game with me in a style that they can easily pick up and enjoy. I want a ruleset that I can easily DM without ruining the enjoyment of the players, a ruleset that is mechanically balanced and rewarding, a ruleset that is open to and envourages roleplaying and interaction.

3e and 4e has added a lot to the game, in terms of mechanics and in terms of balance. But they've created a steeper learning curve and now everything takes longer to resolve.

I would like to see the "good parts" of each edition incorporated into D&DNext, then be able to roll up characters in 10 minutes and play a balanced and fun game of D&D.
 

In short, we the gamers don't really need D&D Next (making it a tough sell as it is). WotC on the other hand DOES need D&D Next to be able to continue with the approach to the game that they've been operating under.
A good summation. There's what's best for the hobby, there's what's best for the industry, and there's what's best for D&D as a product line of a unit of Hasbro.

"D&D: Next" is about trying to achieve what's best for a product line of a unit of a big corporation, not what's best for the hobby it essentially kicked off in 1974, either the fans enjoying that hobby nor the general industry serving them. WotC has every right - and, indeed, an obligation to it's employees and Hasbro's stockholders - to do just that, and only that.
 

"D&D: Next" is about trying to achieve what's best for a product line of a unit of a big corporation, not what's best for the hobby it essentially kicked off in 1974, either the fans enjoying that hobby nor the general industry serving them. WotC has every right - and, indeed, an obligation to it's employees and Hasbro's stockholders - to do just that, and only that.

But to serve it's corporate self-interest, WotC needs to sell DDN books. To sell books, it helps if you have a group of people interested in buying them. To get people to want to buy them, you really should develop and deliver a game that they want. That is fun to play. That is, subjectively speaking, "good".

So I don't think the interests of WotC and its presumptive customers (us) are as divergent in reality as you suggest. Or I could be misreading your post, that happens.
 

That's capitalism for ya.

The problem is that "making a good product that people want to buy" is only one of the viable strategies for capitalist success.

For example, you can go the "make a poor product and lie to people about how good it is" route. Or the "eliminate your competition so people have to buy your product or go without" strategy. Or even the "make a poor product but price it so high people buy it for the status" tactic.

We'd prefer WotC goes the first route, definitely. But the only thing they have to do is convince people to buy something they have to sell, year after year. So the trick is for the consumers to persuade them to sell us what we actually want to buy.
 


Remove ads

Top