D&D General Former WotC Employee Greg Bilsland Returning to D&D?

[darjr]

This, the basic structure of D&D is now locked into code on D&DBeyond. Unless they want to restructure the code to become system agnostic (which may be a good idea).

While I kinda agree with this, they could just walk away from it like they did with 4e and all the
Money they spent in its digital tools and environment.

I’m not sure they will, mind you, but they could.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because I've heard this story before at least a dozen times from a dozen different companies, large and small (some much larger than WotC), and in absolutely none of those cases did it turn out that they actually followed a 5-year plan, even when they actually did have one.

I guess it depends on what you think of as "following a 5-year plan". No plan is 100% set-in-stone. That would be foolish. But you were arguing that a plan that looked like "Book A. Book B. Book C." was too much of a plan. (Or at least it seemed so). I would assume that the plan would have a basic sketch on what those books actually look like - meaning I would think that the plan was more developed than that, not less (certainly more for 2026, if not 2027 as well.

If it wasn't worth "lying" (your word, not mine) about, you wouldn't be devoting so much time and effort to defending it. Clearly this putative plan has some kind of significant value to you, not least in claiming it would be followed.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I also don't know why you think I'm "devoting time to defending it". I'm devoting time to talking to you about it, because I find it interesting. I'm not really defending anything, beyond superficially. I simply think that if they say they have a five-year plan sketched out, then they probably do. I absolutely don't think that their next five years is set in stone, that would be ridiculous. Nor do I think that it particularly needs defending. I simply had just barely enough interest in why you formed your opinion to speak to you on the subject.

Also, I'm not saying they're "lying", I'm saying I think it's unlikely that their vision of "5-year plan" is anything like as detailed or precise as you and others have suggested it is.

Who suggested it was detailed or precise? "Book A; Book B" is not precise. As I say above, it's probably MORE detailed than that, but not set in stone. Not fleshed out.

This is another thing I've seen before. People assuming this is some detailed plan, when it's usually vague-as-hell and barely worthy of the name "plan". And talking about it isn't "lying" it's "hype", which is something related but fundamentally different.

You won't catch me arguing that a corporation isn't using hype.

More likely they had and I say had some vague ideas as to where they were going over the next 5 years. More precise ones for the next year or two.

But it's actively silly, imho, to believe that a complete change-out of the people with the most direct influence on D&D is going to result in absolutely no major changes from anything that even was planned.

Never said that it would.

Yet that's exactly what you suggested!

Huh? Where did I do that?

That these guys would just be caretakers who'd follow some established plan. To me, at least, that's a laughable idea, based on how these things have gone down historically.

As usual, on the interned, we seem to be arguing over a thin margin between opinions while looking like there is a gulf between us. I think that it should be easy to follow a "plan" simply because the plan is vague and broad enough to follow. You made it sound (to me) like you were arguing that there was no way that they left a five year plan. I believe that they probably did. Meanwhile, we agree that the plan is probably malleable and vague. To me, that's what a 5-year plan IS. It's still a plan.

Yup, which is why I said I don't think we'll see any real evidence re: the direction of the new people until at least late 2026.

Sure, I agree.

 

[Parmandur]

WotC followed a five year plan, more or less, after the big shuffle last time.

Yeah, I distinctly remember the Big Three discussing their 5 year plan early on, and...they followed through. Them seemed to come up with a new one thwt culminated I'm the new core books.

 

[Parmandur]

Ultimately it will come down to sales numbers, just like it did for any previous edition. If they drop off, a 6e will appear. It probably won't be as radical a change as 3e -> 4e -> 5e however, to make it easier on DDB.

Yeah, I wouldn't even expect anything as mechanically radical as 2024 again.

Look at how many publishers still get mileage out of polishing Basic D&D after 40 years, or Chaosium and Call of Cthulu.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is exactly the sort of thing which means 5-year plans are a nonsense in the sense of being something you actually follow.

This is the actual point that you and I are disagreeing on, and that's fine. We can disagree.

I just don't think that a 5 year plan is nonsense just because it has room to change and develop and adjust and morph. As long as it still follows some sense of the "broad strokes", it's still an effective plan. Heck, even if it winds up ending nowhere near where it began, it doesn't mean that the plan wasn't worth developing in the first place. Nor that it was actually thrown out. Just that it was flexible.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, I wouldn't even expect anything as mechanically radical as 2024 again.

oh, I hope it is more ‘mechanically radical’… that is certainly a term I would not use in conjunction with 2024

Look at how many publishers still get mileage out of polishing Basic D&D after 40 years, or Chaosium and Call of Cthulu.

in either case I am not clear why they bother. There is so little difference that I see no reason to rebuy either. Settings and adventures maybe, but rules…

It’s fine to update them for new players, but that so far never was the reason for D&D editions, with possibly the exception of 2024.

 

[Parmandur]

oh, I hope it is more ‘mechanically radical’… that is certainly a term I would not use in conjunction with 2024


in either case I am not clear why they bother. There is so little difference that I see no reason to rebuy either. Settings and adventures maybe, but rules…

It’s fine to update them for new players, but that so far never was the reason for D&D editions, with possibly the exception of 2024.

Right, radical mechanical changes are relative: I expect 2024 will prove more radical in changing the actual rules than future versions of the game. Aesthetic and content changes, with mild adjustments over time.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

While I kinda agree with this, they could just walk away from it like they did with 4e and all the
Money they spent in its digital tools and environment.

I’m not sure they will, mind you, but they could.

They have a working product, one which does all the things that the 4e tools and Gleemax ever promised to do and in a form that is not a dead-end technology. There is no good reason to walk away from it.
If they decide to create an edition incompatible with 5e they are better off creating parallel development that adds that functionality to the current codebase. The new tools would be just another url on the D&DBeyond website, like the Maps tool. they could support the old game forever at little cost.

 

[darjr]

They have a working product, one which does all the things that the 4e tools and Gleemax ever promised to do and in a form that is not a dead-end technology. There is no good reason to walk away from it.
If they decide to create an edition incompatible with 5e they are better off creating parallel development that adds that functionality to the current codebase. The new tools would be just another url on the D&DBeyond website, like the Maps tool. they could support the old game forever at little cost.

Well people are still using some of those 4e tools, albeit with a hefty helping of piracy.

 

[Parmandur]

While I kinda agree with this, they could just walk away from it like they did with 4e and all the
Money they spent in its digital tools and environment.

I’m not sure they will, mind you, but they could.

In terms of sheer possible outcomes in the physical world? Yup, sure, possible.

Just seems unlikely, and every product thst gets added to Beyond (now third party optiona added frequently!) and sells well adds just a bit more difficulty to the business case for radical change for change sake.