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

[Corpsetaker]

I'm not arguing that D&D has a tonne of content. I'm arguing that it's an advantage. Lots of setting and monsters don't mean success, and are largely irrelevant to the success of an MMO.

I would say it's a huge success to us players and DM's and that's what counts.

 

[tyrlaan]

D&D's content is what makes me so confident. I see underutilization of world content.

I think you're considerably overestimating the power of that content. Not to mention the vast amount of work it would involve to build an MMO that includes all of these settings you are drawing from for your vision. Those are each full worlds/realms that each are sufficient for the setting of one game. The work to do this would be MASSIVE. Not impossible, but incredibly time consuming and expensive, which of course increases the risk that the game will get it's ROI.

Because D&D is a more magical world. A more fantastical world. It isn't tied to a particular story told a particular way.

I think you're overestimating this too. I wouldn't say it's more magical than, say, WoW, for example. More magical doesn't inherently make it better. There are people who won't play WoW because it's "too cartoony" or "not realistic", but they'll play LotRO because it's art style is vastly more grounded in realism.

D&D is a Massive Multiplayer RPG we've been playing in our imaginations for years. Everquest was started by a group that wanted to bring a game like D&D to life. Warcraft built on Everquest's success. Where do you think fantasy MMORPG's came from? It was a guy that wanted to bring D&D to life, but couldn't get access to the content. So he built a mythology of his own.

I agree that D&D is the granddaddy of the MMO, but I don't think that means it has a fundamental edge to allow a D&D MMO to be better than the MMOs out there. This alone does not make a successful product, IMO.

Very different. We spend hours playing a TTRPG that is essentially the precursor of games like Everquest and WoW. We've been doing what those players have been doing years prior to them doing it. Leveling up. Getting magic items. Moving through adventures designed by level. All those games are based on D&D. Yet D&D for some reason I can't fathom hasn't leveraged itself into the Online Virtual World market in a big way.

Boggles my mind why I'm not seeing their worlds brought to life given they have fantasy worlds that make Norrath and Azeroth look like child's imitations of world building.

We're just going to disagree on that. I think Star Wars with it's myriad of planets can easily give D&D a run for it's money as far as amount of content.

But more on point, you do realize there are two actively running D&D MMOs, right? Each achieving at least marginal success since they are still available to play. I'm asking because your comments suggest you might not be aware.

 

[sunshadow21]

I would say it's a huge success to us players and DM's and that's what counts.

The big difference is that what works for DMs and players at an individual table where individual tastes can be accounted for and the game adjusted accordingly does not work at all well for an MMO. Even for a game like Baldur's Gate, it can become clear very quickly that translating the vast amount of stories and worlds into a computer game is not an easy process. Ask ten groups what a city like Waterdeep should look like and how much of a focus it should be and you will likely get ten completely different answers, making it extremely difficult as a game designer to use that element in a computer game. Baldur's Gate didn't have too much difficulty mostly because it was what actually defined much of that particular region; trying to replicate that level of success in a computer game today would be very, very difficult. All one has to do is look at the success of the two current MMOs; they are doing well enough to stay up, but calling them a notable success when they both land quite firmly in the middle of the MMO pack despite a lot of effort and money to elevate them higher is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Celtavian]

We're just going to disagree on that. I think Star Wars with it's myriad of planets can easily give D&D a run for it's money as far as amount of content.

Star Wars does not have a natural kill and accumulate paradigm. I completely avoided the game because I have no interest in playing a Jedi that kills and accumulates gear. Or a Rebel soldier. Or even a Sith. I do not feel Star Wars appeal fits the MMORPG paradigm.

But more on point, you do realize there are two actively running D&D MMOs, right? Each achieving at least marginal success since they are still available to play. I'm asking because your comments suggest you might not be aware.

I have tried them both. Cheaply done games aimed at making money off dark elf lovers and the D&D brand. When I play those games, I think how much more they could do.

 

[tyrlaan]

Star Wars does not have a natural kill and accumulate paradigm. I completely avoided the game because I have no interest in playing a Jedi that kills and accumulates gear. Or a Rebel soldier. Or even a Sith. I do not feel Star Wars appeal fits the MMORPG paradigm.

That's cool, I get that's why you didn't play it, but the game is successful presumably because many don't have that hangup. I don't think your personal dislike for the game means it's not a relevant point of comparison to demonstrate the challenges of what you are proposing to build.

I have tried them both. Cheaply done games aimed at making money off dark elf lovers and the D&D brand. When I play those games, I think how much more they could do.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think either is winning any awards anytime soon. I played both for an incredibly short time before I walked away from them.

However they are actively funded games, which means Hasbro considers them worth it to continue to license the brand to the game developers. As long as that's the case I doubt they'd invest in a third D&D game, especially one with the vast scope you propose, which would effectively step all over the toes of the existing two games. I suppose it could happen, but it's likely a very remote possibility.

 

[Jessica]

I kind of wonder how Celtavian would reconcile his magic supremacist world view with the desire to produce a D&D game in a genre of video games where game balance is of the utmost importance.

 

[wedgeski]

Is it even "winning" anymore? WOW revenue fell 54% in seven months. It's revenue is now less than half of what it was at the peak. They're now turning to price increases to staunch the bleeding revenue numbers, which seems like a short term fix at the expense of long term customer retention. They started the first quarter of this year with 10 million customers and by the end of the quarter were down to 7 million customers.

Yes, it still is. It remains magnitudes more popular than its nearest competitor. When WoW drops to two million subs sometime in the next few years, it'll be a fifth the size it was, and still be killing everyone else. It was also the first price hike in ten years.