D&D 5E How would you ensure longevity and sustainability for 5th Edition?

Definitely settings. They have a whole chunk of settings to bring into 5e play, and they could very well open these up via some of their epic level APs - Demogorgon leaves a rift in space behind his sofa in the Underdark and...whoops... "It's a Dungeons and Dragons ride!"...there you are in Krynn wondering why the hell everyone is attacking your best buddy Dave the Dragonborn...definitely keeps it fresh.
Ooh.
Had a thought. Quantum Leap. Into different settings. Starting again at lower levels to stop it becoming PC Demigods v Helpless Minions of Evil Yes Even The Big Bad Humungous Deities and Their Pet Tarrasques.
The DM is Al/Ziggy.
Yeah.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Especially if in setting B (Greyhawk, Krynn, Eberron, whichever), the PCs "land" in the bodies of adventurers who are fighting the minions of the evil overlord who happens to be this reality's version of one of the PCs...
 

I have no idea. I have some speculation, but nothing sure-fire. Turning RPGs into a long term sustainable business has never worked out well. Most companies default to expansions followed by an edition-cycle of constant upgrades. Other publishers produce different games instead between edition cycles, prolonging editions, or variations of the same game system with different licences.
Sustaining the same edition with the same game for longer than five years... that's going into unknown territory.

Glut is bad. I'm a proponent of the idea of limited expansions that eventual end rather than continuing for the entire lifetime of the edition. I've also argued for fewer, bigger releases that can be the focus for multiple years and are really thematic and game changing. But I can't think of many that people would like to buy beyond psionics.

The two APs each year seems like a good start. Regular adventure content that can keep people playing for months at a time. Especially if they start shaking up the tone from world ending events.
From there, a book each year-ish would be nice. Something new, but not tied to a hard deadline so it could be released when it's ready, when it's finished.

Starting with a new Realms campaign setting would be sweet. It's the one campaign setting that has really changed since the previous version of the setting guide. From there a thematic accessory for players might be nice (psionics) followed by a Manual of the Planes and a monster book the next year. After that.... no idea. But that's five years from now. Maybe things will still be good, maybe things will be struggling.
 

This hypothetical is inspired by Mike's comments about the expected playbook when it comes to rpgs. Specifically, he said that players have a script that turns out badly for publishers. (Via a twitter conversation here.)

So imagine you are given the monumental task of ensuring the longevity of D&D fifth edition. A Hari Seldon role, if you will, of ensuring the game and brand can weather the usual difficult timeline of an RPG.

What do you do?


DON'T D**K AROUND WITH IT!
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
So imagine you are given the monumental task of ensuring the longevity of D&D fifth edition.

What do you do? What products become priority? What gets released, and more importantly, what doesn't?
It's not a difficult question, really. 'Sustaining mode' is a standard formula. You cut costs, you focus on existing customers, you drop R&D, you don't take risks, you maintain consistency, and you let it spin out as long as it'll go.

Top priority is cutting costs. Costs can't be too low.

The next priority is to put a single, identifiable, product out there and keep it on the shelves. That's the 3 traditional core books. Nothing else should even look like a core book. I wouldn't even have gone for hard-bound adventure-path style modules as too easily mistaken for a rulebook, but old-school, magazine-style ones with a map on the inside of the removable cover.

If practicable, support the AL program to keep people playing and bring in a trickle of new players (maybe even enough to replace existing ones as they lose interest and/or die) and maintain the perception that D&D is a real thing.

Put out an OGL to keep adventures and definitively-not-core-book product flowing without costing you money. Maybe the OGL would need to be focused on enabling D&D supplements, rather than other d20 games.

Encourage (don't actively discourage) fan activities. Fan sites, fan-authored material, meetups, etc... They don't cost you anything, and are only a danger if they somehow dilute the brand.


Things to avoid:

Any big, expensive push for new players. No mainstream advertising, for instance.

Expensive software or on-line service initiatives: too expensive to develop and keep current, not the core appeal of TTRPGs.

Any risks to the existing market: Avoid excessive controversy (a little controversy helps peek interest), don't violate customer expectations (don't even try to 'exceed' expectations, that's a continuous climb and would eventually raise costs). The mantra should be "keep doing what you've always done" (just do it cheaper).

Endangering brand Identity: Don't make changes to the existing product, even if they might theoretically be improvements. Don't issue errata (save it for a later printing), don't roll revs. Any new edition (new printing, really) should have nothing more than different art and cleaned up text.
 

...you focus on existing customers...

If practicable, support the AL program to keep people playing and bring in a trickle of new players (maybe even enough to replace existing ones as they lose interest and/or die) and maintain the perception that D&D is a real thing....

Any big, expensive push for new players. No mainstream advertising, for instance.
I'm not sure I understand you. You discourage expanding the player base, but you acknowledge the replacement problem. If the game is to be sustainable, isn't replacement kind of Priority Number One?
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I'm not sure I understand you. You discourage expanding the player base, but you acknowledge the replacement problem. If the game is to be sustainable, isn't replacement kind of Priority Number One?
The sustaining model gives up on trying to achieve growth, yes. That doesn't mean intentionally avoiding new customers, but it does mean focusing on existing customers. Focus on an existing customer base can be expected to bring in some new customers. In the case of a game, they'll introduce it to new friends or play it with their kids, for instance. You just can't go changing the product in the hopes of making it more appealing to new customers, at the risk of making it less appealing to the base. So, no recruiting replacement customers is not the highest priority - if they're loyal, and you're consistent in delivering on their expectations, your existing customers can sustain the product for a long time.

I guess it's ironic, though, that 'sustaining' isn't meant to be perpetual - eventually a sustaining product will slide towards end of life (for that matter, sometimes it can be revived and start growing again, if you can justify the investment).
 

Remathilis

Legend
Yearly Release Schedule.

Q1: AP module.
Q2: Setting/Rules Expansion (psionics, Eberron, Realms, Epic, etc).
Q3: AP Module
Q4: Options book (Monsterbook, splatbook, etc)
 

Bad Fox

First Post
I think TSR had it right - settings drive sales. But their execution ("hey! let's release all this stuff side-by-side!") was poor. Releasing them in serial, and then once you've cycled through them all pulling a Disney and "reopening the vault" for updates/new material would help keep interest high.

Absolutely agree with this... settings can put interesting products on shelves without contributing too much to an overall bloating of options and rules. Plus it neatly supports big, event-driven marketing. This is what seems to happen with MtG: event-based releases centred around varied worlds and stories. (That said, RPGs are a different animal than CCGs. The "setting" release schedule for Magic likely wouldn't be the optimal one for D&D.)

Interestingly, I think that data from the last survey might be used to chart a course for just this sort of "setting-centric" strategy. Whatever the plan is, I expect that Mearls & Co. will be paying close attention to what worlds people say they most want to play in.
 

Remove ads

Top