D&D 5E Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)

[Thaumaturge]

I have to say, after decades of DM'ing and experimenting with rules and design, I no longer see any value in insisting on playing "the vanilla game". I could if one were new to it.

Ok.

[additional content added before hitting "submit"]
I can understand that. You also appear, from your other posts, to have a much stronger sense of the specific things you demand out of a game. I don't think this is either a good or bad thing. It's just a difference between us. I'm much more comfortable playing vanilla for a while to see what the game does on its own. Again, I don't think either of our ways is better in any sort of objective sense.

That being said, if there is a tweak to the game that will obviously make the game more enjoyable to me and mine, I won't hesitate to implement it just because of what the calendar says.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Andor]

While I'm not sure WotC will go that route, I'm expecting to see options to buy a book, and then gain access to the book in their online tools.

Yeah, the existence of the online market/tools is where the 2e analogy obviously goes weak. Maybe only the GM buys the box set, but all the players have the Spelljammer pdf and the Mindlink app. It's probably a viable business model, but untried by a major player as yet.

 

[TwoSix]

Has anyone ever worked out how to successfully do that? As far as I am aware, every attempt except gimmicky kid's ones involving webcams, has failed.

Buy a miniature with a RFID chip, gain access to the miniature's special abilities in the builder? D&D meets Skylanders?

Maybe a secret decoder wheel, like Pools of Radiance?

Seriously, I don't know. I think a free-to-try version of the Character Builder is inevitable, Basic Rules only, and then they'll be either a subscription model or a "buy this expansion book for the builder, get the PDF for free" approach, maybe even both concurrently.

Yea, I don't see how tying a physical commodity like a book to the builder will be possible. I mean, you'd think WotC of all people would really want to be able to do that to tie Magic and MGTO together, but they don't it there either.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Vanilla?

Pssssh, you kids with your PHBs don't know the MEANING of the word Vanilla, with your dragonborns and your handlebar-tieflings and your gnomes and your druids.

Do you even BASIC, brah?

In hindsight, it’s actually a fairly obvious move. Let’s say you buy the three core rulebooks and then the two volumes of the Tyranny of Dragons campaign. That gives you everything you need for the next 6 to 12 months of gaming. Do I really have much of a chance to sell you more RPG stuff during that time? Why fight that battle?

This is actually a really exciting insight from my standpoint because AYUP, people don't actually need all that much gaming mojo to have fun with their D&D. Collectors like me (and much of ENWorld, I'd warrant) aside, a group with a 5-level adventure is SET, for, like, a YEAR (well, maybe 6-9 months, but that's a school year, homes), as far as actual need for developed game rules go.

But everyone in that group would totally, I dunno, buy a little sliver ampersand pin, or a D&D videogame, or a D&D novel, or go see a D&D movie, or would watch a well-made D&D cartoon series (thinking something quality, possibly involving Gendy or Lauren or, hell, Pendelton?).

And the collectors would load up on EXTRA D&D books, too.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I like that idea. Reminds me of Alternity, which isn't a bad thing.

Reminds me of Savage Worlds

Proficiency dice would also seem to be an excellent vector for more granular bonuses and penalties, without requiring more calculation at the table. Maybe some conditions force you to give up your proficiency die, for example.

Hmm... you mean like instead of a numeric increase, simply increase/decrease the die type? That could be interesting.

Alternately, Advantage/Disadvantage on the Prof. die only to represent small bonuses/penalties, Adv/Disad on the d20 for bigger ones.

 

[wedgeski]

Has anyone ever worked out how to successfully do that? As far as I am aware, every attempt except gimmicky kid's ones involving webcams, has failed.

It can be done with long unlock codes but there has to be a (good) support system in place to handle situations where the code has been illegitimately activated by people who have access to the books prior to sale (e.g. FLGS and book-store employees). That is not easy...or at least, it's not cheap.

 

[Sir Brennen]

They seem to be going to the 2e sales model where the core books drive sales of campaign supplements, rather than the 3e model where supplements drove sales of the core books. Which is odd given that TSR nearly went under during the 2e days and WoTC made plenty of cash from 3e. The fact is that a group only needs one box set, usually bought by the GM, but everyone like to have their own rulebooks. I'm hoping they do well, but I think they may have backed the wrong pony.

Except, as pointed out in all the stuff you quoted, it's not about which RPG products drive sales of which other RPG products, it's about the D&D brand as a whole. And that brand has a lot more outlets for potential revenue streams today than when TSR owned it. Sales of RPG books will only be a contributing factor to the health of WotC's business, not the primary indicator, which I think a lot of people are still trying to get their heads around.

Regarding the "business models" of prior editions: granted, 2E seemed to have a never-ending stream of campaign supplement books that probably had diminishing returns, as they were picked up by a subset of a subset of DMs (though I bought the Van Richten Guides without running Ravenloft simply because they were awesome.) However, I also remember a huge, huge glut of "rule" books aimed at player and DM alike in the waning days of 2E. Do ye not remember the "Complete Book of [X]" soft-bound books? WotC did seems to cut back on the former, but there were a lot of "rulebooks" that were more DM friendly but with some player content mixed in, but were still getting a bit overly-specific in their nature, so once again, you're just getting a small subset of players and DMs alike purchasing them.

 

[TwoSix]

This is actually a really exciting insight from my standpoint because AYUP, people don't actually need all that much gaming mojo to have fun with their D&D. Collectors like me (and much of ENWorld, I'd warrant) aside, a group with a 5-level adventure is SET, for, like, a YEAR (well, maybe 6-9 months, but that's a school year, homes), as far as actual need for developed game rules go.

I'm reminded of the fact that for free-to-play games, 50% of the revenue is collected from just 0.5% of the playerbase. Keeping that 0.5% satisfied with new releases in pretty critical.

 

[TwoSix]

Hmm... you mean like instead of a numeric increase, simply increase/decrease the die type? That could be interesting.

Alternately, Advantage/Disadvantage on the Prof. die only to represent small bonuses/penalties, Adv/Disad on the d20 for bigger ones.

Yep, increasing/decreasing die type was exactly how Alternity worked.

Granting A/D to the prof die instead of (or in addition to) the d20 seems very workable, as well.

 

[jgsugden]

This is going to be the biggest irritation this autumn... knowing that there are going to be rules modules in the DMG that I most likely will want to use for my 5E campaign, but not being able to see them until November. ...

My advice: Run a game that stars in August with a completion in early December. That gives you a chance to see the rules, try a few things out and then reboot once we have a better underastanding and some experience under our belts. Try the core rules without modification to see how they actually work in play, as opposed to how you think they'll work, and then make changes once you have experience.