D&D 5E I think I've figured something out about the purpose of 5e

[dangerous jack]

I think there's a big hint that they haven't been calling it 5e, and Mike Mearls wants to call it very simply "Dungeons & Dragons".

My guess is that their goal is to make D&D become like Prego (see Malcolm Gladwell's spaghetti sauce talk at Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce | Video on TED.com). They know they can't make a single perfect version of D&D. They want you calling the game you're playing "D&D".

So I think we'll be a little shocked at just how small the "core" is, and we'll see a massive optional rules explosion and rules will be attached to adventures.

And hey, if the special rules built for navigating Zombie-Pirate-Island (of Dread) take off, then they can be repurposed for other adventures. If they don't work out, then Dinosaur-Pirate-Island will use a different set of rules. But whether you're playing Dinosaur-Pirates or Zombie-Pirates, even if they play quite differently you're still calling it D&D. And even if one of these takes off, it doesn't preclude making Dinosaur-Zombie Island as an adventure with a totally different rule in the future.

This world works for me. We'll see how it all turns out.

 

[Yora]

I don't know as much about 4e going to Essentials--though the resemblance to the 3.0 to 3.5 transition is worth noting. In both cases they seemed to be PLANNED publications, meant to increase revenue streams even if the player base didn't necessarily think they were merited.

Essentials appeard to me as "Don't worry! Don't run away! We can fix this!"
When it got a mixed response, I started wondering how they would try to pull the ship around without a second revision and suspected something like 5th Edition.

 

[mhensley]

Here is an interesting article that touches on the subject:

The PA Report - Days of Wonder CEO explains how iPad Ticket to Ride boosted sales of the real thing

It's about how the iOS version of A Ticket to Ride boosts sales of the board game. Familiarity with the rules from the hand held gives players the confidence to play the boardgame with friends.

I think this was a huge problem for 4e - it was the only edition not to have a video game to hook players and show people how the rules worked.

 

[cavalier973]

I think this was a huge problem for 4e - it was the only edition not to have a video game to hook players and show people how the rules worked.

WoTC tried too hard to protect their IP. They should have gone the other direction.

Germany in the 19th century was a more literate place, and German authors could make a better living there, than their British counterparts. The reason? Britain had stringent IP laws, and Germany had virtually none.

 

[Otakkun]

4E "failed" because it was supposed to be "an electronic edition". We were promised VTTs, online gadgets and it was almost implied that games, MMOs, etc would follow.

After all, we were changing the core of how D&D worked in order to make it more "PC game like".

Yet, no VTT, no real consistent online support, no games, no nada. iplay4e showed everyone the incredible potential they had on their hands, and yet ... nada again.

So, they can only blame themselves for this.

 

[occam]

Seriously, in 2008, who in their right mind would have predicted that 4 years later, D&D wouldn't even be the most popular RPG in the category it created?

...

I don't think WotC expects 5e to dominate the market--heck, they haven't even dominated it the last year and a half; their main competitor has.

You should be more careful in your analysis. Greater or lesser aggregate sales don't necessarily equate to "popularity". The fact is that Wizards has released far fewer D&D products over the last year than Paizo has. I don't even play Pathfinder (and I do play 4e), and I've spent a lot more money on Paizo products recently than on WotC's.

Sales in this industry are difficult enough to estimate; popularity is even more so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you take into account the few realeases in the last year, how should 4e outsell pathfinder?

 

[Neonchameleon]

For profit, the content of the books is much less relevant then the presentation of the books. Both were presented as a new core, something a typical D&D player had to have. 3.5 had the new version of the fighter, essentials had a new version of a fighter. In my point of view they were virtually identical marketing moves by WOTC. I'd be willing to bet that many dedicate 3e players, rebought 3.5, and that many dedicated 4e players bought essentials. Much more then the typical splats books because they were branded as neccessary, and thats all that matters.
...
As someone who owns both 3.5 and essentials, I dont see the difference personaly.

I get what you're saying, dkyle; in terms of its effects on the rules, Essentials was nowhere near the same level of change as 3.5. Sure, it offered some different options, and fixed some math for existing "core" stuff, but it was clearly meant to run on the same engine.

I actually see a substantial difference between Essentials and 3.5.

From what I can tell, a number of the changes in 3.5 (square horses) were made for the sake of change as much as anything. Some were genuine fixes (Bards, Rangers, Haste) or failed fixes (Monks, Polymorph). And the game was genuinely expanded in some ways with prestige classes that looked overpowered but really, really weren't unless you abused the entry requirements* (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster).

But all in all, other than the Mystic Theurge & Co, I see very little difference between 3.0 and 3.5. And certainly nothing that couldn't have been in 3.0.

Essentials on the other hand, I simply don't believe WoTC had the skill to produce. Every Monster Manual has been significantly better than the previous one at a technical level (even if the MM3 is arguably the worst due to being most obscure). Learning how to balance classes with significantly different power structure is hard, especially to the levels of balance 4e works to. And I simply do not believe that the writers of the PHB had the skill to produce Essentials at the time the PHB was written or were even close. Further, although I consider Essentials a vast improvement over the PHB, I consider the results of a game that starts out with mechanical parity between fighters and casters to be superior to the hypothetical version that had the Slayer, the Knight, and no Martial Dailies.

Essentials changed fewer rules, but did IMO far more to broaden the game and what people could viably play.

* Mystic Theurge on top of Ur Priest was just ... unpleasant. Or, worse yet, Ur Priest and Nar Demonbinder and a caster level running out of control. But that's not what was intended at all. The intended entry method (Wiz 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1) can only cast second level spells at level 7.

 

[OnlineDM]

I think there's some truth to what the original post says. However, I think the bigger driver for this next edition is to try to convince the RPG community at large that WotC isn't horrible. Yes, this is because they want to get onto gamers' table rotation, but I think a big thrust of their strategy is to try to wash off the bad feeling that a lot of gamers got from the 4e rollout and the perceived bashing of 3e at the time.

Lots of gamers seem to have loved WotC for rescuing D&D from a failing TSR and bringing out a beloved 3rd Edition. Lots of gamers seem to have hated WotC for the way they brought out 4e (3e bashing + big changes to some game mechanics + no more PDFs + no more OGL). I think WotC is very focused on trying to get gamers to love them again. Without that, I think there are a lot of game groups that flat-out won't use any product from WotC.

 

[Dexamalion]

I think WotC is very focused on trying to get gamers to love them again. Without that, I think there are a lot of game groups that flat-out won't use any product from WotC.

I think this is a great point, but you've gotta think that WotC already knew that this was a hobby, and in order to run it as a good business, you need to have the hobbyists on side. They've done a great job with Magic (looking from the outside in, I don't actually play it) and they seem to know the value of the player in that space.