D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[ECMO3]

I'm not suggesting this should be done because it always has been, just stating that it has been done, and that significant edition change can and has been a successful business tactic for WotC.

It was only really a successful business tactic from 4E to 5E.

Looking historically:

1E to 2E --> Not successful and drove TSR into bankrupcy

2E -->3E --> Successful only because 2E was dead. Kind of hard not to improve.

3.5E --> 4E Disaster

4E --> 5E This is the only complete edition switch that I would say was truely an unmitigated successful business decision.

Further when talking about backwards compatibility, we should also consider the 3E to 3.5E update which was a success.

Frankly I would argue the historical record, limited though it is, would indicate the opposite of your hypothesis: Going to a backwards-compatible updated version has always worked (the one other time it was tried), while bringing an entirely new edition to the table has generally not been a good business decision.

I also (and more importantly to my mind) think it is better creatively, as a proper 6e would allow the current designers of D&D, now soon to be under new leadership, to develop and more fully realize their design ideas under their current sensibilities and make a game targeted to the audience they want. And I believe games are stronger structurally, more interesting, and more fun when they have a clear design ethos and target audience.

I think it is likely a complete edition switch would have resulted in WOTC losing market share to 3rd party publishers in a fashion similar to how the 4E edition switch resulted in a massive market share loss to Paizo. The situation now is even more conducive to this than it was when 4E hit the streets.

 

[mamba]

It depends on the metric. The new 2024 rulebooks are vastly outselling the previous expansion books published in the last few years, so if your metric is popularity in terms of digital sales then the answer is yes.

that was basically guaranteed given the continued growth of 5e.

If they had not managed that, it would have been a disaster, so I do not take that as an indication of anything. It will take 2-3 years at least before we can say anything, the only thing that is clear so far is that it was not a complete and utter failure

 

[mamba]

It was only really a successful business tactic from 4E to 5E.

Looking historically:

1E to 2E --> Not successful and drove TSR into bankrupcy

without 2e that would have happened much sooner, you statement for 2e -> 3e applies here as well

2E -->3E --> Successful only because 2E was dead. Kind of hard not to improve.

3.5E --> 4E Disaster

4E --> 5E This is the only complete edition switch that I would say was truely an unmitigated successful business decision.

I agree with this part

Further when talking about backwards compatibility, we should also consider the 3E to 3.5E update which was a success.

3e to 3.5 was not a success, 3.5 followed the same trajectory as 3e and the editions before it. If 3.5 was a success then so was 2e and 3e

Frankly I would argue the historical record, limited though it is, would indicate the opposite of your hypothesis: Going to a backwards-compatible updated version has always worked (the one other time it was tried), while bringing an entirely new edition to the table has generally not been a good business decision.

you are ignoring 4e Essentials, and that did not work out either, just like 3.5 did not, despite you wanting to put it into the success column

If we can learn anything from the half-editions (3.5, 4e Essentials) then that they gave a rather temporary bump for a year, two at best, but did not manage to turn things around.

What makes the 5.5 case different is that previously the editions were already failing, which is not true for 5e, so we are in uncharted territory

 

[Corinnguard]

agreed, guess 4e drove that lesson home, finally

That and the number of players and D&D enthusiasts switching over to PF1 for something that looked like the D&D they were familiar with. 4e to some was a pretty radical departure from 3e.

I think it is likely a complete edition switch would have resulted in WOTC losing market share to 3rd party publishers in a fashion similar to how the 4E edition switch resulted in a massive market share loss to Paizo. The situation now is even more conducive to this than it was when 4E hit the streets.

True, they don't want history to repeat itself. However, while they are trying to avoid repeating old mistakes, they have made several new ones like the whole OGL 1.0 debacle from two years ago. Then there are the 5e-adjacent RPGs. Same 5e chassis but with more crunch. As a result, the 5e community has more stuff to choose from for their RPG sessions.

 

[jasper]

What do you mean? Old PC Subclasses and Monsters, and all rule elements, remain compatible.

sure does

 

[dave2008]

It was only really a successful business tactic from 4E to 5E.

Looking historically:

1E to 2E --> Not successful and drove TSR into bankrupcy

2E -->3E --> Successful only because 2E was dead. Kind of hard not to improve.

3.5E --> 4E Disaster

4E --> 5E This is the only complete edition switch that I would say was truely an unmitigated successful business decision.

Further when talking about backwards compatibility, we should also consider the 3E to 3.5E update which was a success.

Frankly I would argue the historical record, limited though it is, would indicate the opposite of your hypothesis: Going to a backwards-compatible updated version has always worked (the one other time it was tried), while bringing an entirely new edition to the table has generally not been a good business decision.




I think it is likely a complete edition switch would have resulted in WOTC losing market share to 3rd party publishers in a fashion similar to how the 4E edition switch resulted in a massive market share loss to Paizo. The situation now is even more conducive to this than it was when 4E hit the streets.

I think the sales data we have supports your viewpoint as well. Every time (previous to 5e) a new edition was released it had a surge of initial sales, but those quickly fell off. IIRC, only 1e and 5e had any sustain success.

 

[dave2008]

If we can learn anything from the half-editions (3.5, 4e Essentials) then that they gave a rather temporary bump for a year, two at best, but did not manage to turn things around.

What makes the 5.5 case different is that previously the editions were already failing, which is not true for 5e, so we are in uncharted territory

It is possible the difference is 3.5 and Essentials were trying to revive a dying product line. 5e24 is just trying to continue the success. I don't think they are apples to apples.

 

[dave2008]

True, they don't want history to repeat itself. However, while they are trying to avoid repeating old mistakes, they have made several new ones like the whole OGL 1.0 debacle from two years ago.

That is an old mistake actually, see 4e GSL.

 

[mamba]

It is possible the difference is 3.5 and Essentials were trying to revive a dying product line. 5e24 is just trying to continue the success. I don't think they are apples to apples.

agreed, that is what my last sentence you quoted said

 

[dave2008]

agreed, that is what my last sentence you quoted said

I completely missed that. I was writing my response before I finished reading your post - my apologies!