D&D 5E (2014) Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?

[TerraDave]

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

Yes. Yes we do.

 

[billd91]

Personally, I don't think we need it. We play a variety of games and are on friendly enough terms about playing even the games we're not thrilled about because everyone else is on board.

But we're not WotC. I think they need it more than we do. They've got a big company to contribute support to and a legacy to live up to.

 

[Nikmal]

I dunno. While I think TSR certainly had a lot of bloat in its D&D division (Birthright, for instance, had a huge amount of products that didn't sell all that great, like the little booklets for each kingdom), I think the main problem was its non D&D stuff.

Buck Rogers first and foremost. They only did that because the owner of TSR also owned the BR IP and thus could funnel money from TSR to themselves. They even had two different versions, the second of which really bombed.

Alternity was a neat game, but I'm not sure how it sold. I wouldn't even say Amazing Engine was neat.

Dragon Dice, their attempt at the CCG market (along with Spellfire).

All the novels. Some sold (the D&D ones) but others didn't.

Anyway, I agree with the OP - the different versions of D&D represent diametrically different philosophies of gameplay.

I'd do a lot of things for a friend, but playing 4e is not one of them, and I'm sure 4e fans feel the same about previous editions.

And D&D is more than just gaming with friends, being one of the biggest RPGs, there are a lot of organized events.

So I guess my point is, I think 5e is going to alienate a lot of people, when they should simply not be trying to please everyone with one product. I mean, even Coca-Cola has Sprite, not just Coke related drinks.

Actually too many settings and such killed TSR. They fractured their fan base with to many settings, such as Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Greyhawk, Dragonlance and the list goes on. They divided their fan base to much to get them to buy and concentrate on one main setting and their sales was not enough for their costs of of production. (This coming from an insider that was helping account for all of this when WotC took over.)

BTW organized events also can be with friends too (Including the RPGA and DCI now

 

[John Quixote]

Hah, I can just see it now: Mearls swings by from WotC to see what posters on ENWorld are saying these days; spies this thread and goes, “Well that's that, I guess this whole 5e thing was a bad idea after all. We'd better scrap it and come up with something else..."

 

[hafrogman]

I'd do a lot of things for a friend, but playing 4e is not one of them, and I'm sure 4e fans feel the same about previous editions.

*shrug*

I have played and enjoyed 4e. Right now I'm playing in two 3.5 games.

Why? Because that's what my friends wanted to play. Sara would rather be playing 2e, and Brett would like to be playing Pathfinder. But we all got together and found something we could work with. I'd do a lot of things for a friend. Playing in an RPG campaign is probably the very least among them.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Your central assumption is that I should select my gaming group based on people who game like me instead of, you know, gaming with my friends?

There's no law that says that will or must happen - but over time that's the way to bet.

I would like one edition that we can all compromise on. We don't glare at each other, because we're friends. We just disagree about what to play.

And gaming groups and individuals the world over disagree on the subject a LOT more than you likely will among your friends.

Also, as for the idea of supporting each and every previous edition of D&D at once? That's the kind of thinking that killed TSR.

Not so. TSR ultimately died as a result of 2 events - one million unsold units of the Dragon Dice collectible dice, and the return of unsold copies of 12 novels they published that same year (in previous years they only tried to sell 2 at one time). The associated fees with these events left them without cash to pay the company that not only printed but coordinated and shipped their products, who then naturally refused to do any further work.

It IS true, however, that prior to those events D&D had been on a downward slide for many other reasons. Too many products competing for customer sales dollars - part of which was the repeated production of new campaign settings (or revised versions of existing settings) which continued to earn less and less with each new one; players already having bought what they needed. It wasn't supporting new EDITIONS that were having that effect, but simultaneously supporting too many GAME SETTINGS. At the time of their demise the edition was 2E. Aside from the odd Dragon article or two, 1E hadn't been supported since shortly after 2E was released (less than a year?) and the 1E materials that HAD been in mid-production were either converted, cancelled or released.

TSR as a company had also come to earn a growing poor reputation among customers - products released and were regarded as poor quality, the whole website take-down order debacle, Lorraine Williams (CEO)reported disdain for their own game as well as the customers, the forcing out of Gary Gygax and persecuting his subsequent efforts, and of course the rising competition from other game systems (now MORE popular than D&D) that they had simply never had to deal with before.

I don't know if this whole Next thing will actually succeed. I personally suspect it's more likely to significantly undersucceed (or fail) than it is to achieve its supposed goals of, "One Edition to Rule Them All". I think that if it fails to significantly unite a lot of the "edition-warring" customer base that they will have no option but to support multiple editions. Failure of 5E will have effectively proved that the market is permanently and intractibly divided between distinctly different approaches to playing the game that demand multiple editions.

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.

 

[Kinak]

D&D Next's noble goal is to get setting buffs and tacticians and narrativists and powergamers all sitting at the same table, again - and most likely, glaring at eachother in open disgust. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, does it?

Not when you put it that way, no.

But if someone's playing in a group they don't agree with, there's probably a better reason than you're giving it credit for. Typically, they've been gaming together forever or it's the only group available. If there weren't a good reason, they'd just leave.

If they've been gaming together forever and there's "one system to rule them all," that's great. It's not exactly what any one person wants to be playing, but it's close enough for everyone to enjoy themselves.

If there isn't another group, having "one system to rule them all" might be the only thing that lets them game together at all. And them not gaming together just means one less gaming group. Which is just a sad fate all around.

So, yes, I think one system to rule them all would be a good thing. I don't know if they can do it, but I wish them only the very best of luck.

Also, regarding the fall of TSR at the height of D&D's popularity, from Lisa Stevens (now CEO of Paizo):

It may have been at it's most popular, but the splitting of the customer base is the #1 reason why TSR went out of business. It would take me a couple of hours to explain why this was the case, but as the person responsible at WotC for taking the old TSR data and analyzing it to see why they went belly up, the biggest cause that I found was splitting the customer base into segments. Whether it was D&D vs. AD&D. Or Forgotten Realms vs. Ravenloft vs. Greyhawk vs. Dragonlance vs. Birthright vs. Dark Sun vs. Planescape vs. Mystara vs. Al-Qadim vs. Spelljammer vs. Lanhkmar vs. any other setting book that they produced. Splitting the customer base means lower sales on any particular product which means lower profit margins which eventually means going belly up.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Invisible Stalker]

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.

 

[Tovec]

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.

We didn't need a 4th edition. I'm sure most people who played 1e (and certainly the ones who still do) didn't think 2e was necessary.
That being said, if 5e is good and liked by a group that may consist of current DnD players, old DnD players or entirely new DnD players then it will succeed as much as any edition before it did with the same brew.

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.

A. Just because it is a difficult goal doesn't mean they shouldn't try. They may succeed after all.
B. From what I've seen about reports from the playtests so far (not violating the NDA of course) people all seem to enjoy it. REGARDLESS of edition they all seem to find it fun. I doubt the same can be said about people, regardless of edition, playing any other edition of DnD.
C. It is a good idea to have the different editioneers at the same table, means more DnD all round.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

We didn't need a 4th edition. I'm sure most people who played 1e (and certainly the ones who still do) didn't think 2e was necessary.
That being said, if 5e is good and liked by a group that may consist of current DnD players, old DnD players or entirely new DnD players then it will succeed as much as any edition before it did with the same brew.

You gotta be careful with how you use words like "most" in these situations. I know _I_ didn't need a 4th Edition. I'd gotten plenty out of 3rd and was actually gravitating back to 1st. But, I wouldn't say "most" people who played 1E didn't think 2E was necessary, though there was a vocal (albeit very small) contingent online who disliked the idea. I thought it actually was quite widely accepted that 1E had become a large, cumbersome set of rules spread over too many hardcovers and magazine articles. That was actually one of the bigger selling points for doing 2E (may or may not have been really true) and at least _I_ thought they had the right idea.

My own issue with 2E came later. My complaint was actually that they hadn't changed nearly ENOUGH. The spell descriptions and magic system were a particular complaint of mine at the time and aside from a simpler initiative system they just hadn't done anything useful about its many problems. Still played it though.

At the time of 3E's release _I_ thought it was a welcome revision especially in that they were tearing the game down to its foundations and rebuilding it from bottom up. It was the revision I thought they SHOULD have made with 2E and overdue. Plus, the bloat on 2E was just staggering (I used to have a list of the 30+ hardcover rulebooks ALONE that made up 2E). But by that time internet communication was FAR more common and it became clear that a much larger (though still distinctly small and vocal) minority objected. Or really, at the time I just thought they all needed a bit more convincing and they'd come around to see the sense of it. I had a tendency to think of them as Luddites and Grognards.

With 4E it was clear to me that there were a lot of people who had never liked 3E (or even 2E) for any number of reasons or had become disillusioned with it and 4E worked for them. Though I was giving up on 3E, 4E was definitely not the direction I pesrsonally was at ALL interested in. And by this time there were a lot more and a lot better choices of alternatives which people were taking, myself included.

It's been a steadily growing percentage of people who have wanted the game to step BACK to an earlier approach or at least to have taken a different direction than it has. For 1E it was, as I said, very small. Now it seems apparant that it's "dangerously" large and one of the driving reasons for even undertaking a new edition. It's that steady growth of players into distinct camps wanting distinctly different approaches to the game that makes me think it's more likely to fail than to succeed as well as THEY need it to.

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