D&D (2024) Is the 5E player base going to split?

[Greg Benage]

I doubt it. Those who feel disenfranchised are unlikely to find much solace in Pathfinder Second Edition. When it comes to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries to be able to work well for pretty much any class Pathfinder Second Edition and 5e are following similar trendlines. I happen to prefer Paizo's solutions to those design problems, but I do not think most of the people who feel 5e is going in a different direction then they would like are going to find Paizo more receptive to their desires.

I quoted the whole thing because I couldn't figure out what to trim. I don't feel "disenfranchised," and I don't object to a more socially conscious approach to lore and designing races/ancestries, in general, but I also don't equate fantasy species with physiological differences to real-world bioessentialism, nor do I feel that the problem with 5e monster stat blocks is that they're too complex. I'll allow that Wizards may have good reasons to view things differently, but understanding that doesn't do anything to deepen my enthusiasm for the design direction.

As one point of anecdata, I'm looking at PF2e for the first time. If Roll20 implementation allows me to pick and choose the bits of 5.5 I want to use, I think it's likely I'll stick with it. If not, I'm ready to jump.

 

[JEB]

Probably. One thing I do think is in the offing, though, is that there is an opportunity for a Zeelennial friendly game to appear and gather a strong user base. This space is pretty old at this point, and watching reddit and other, younger spaces shows a hunger for some things no iteration of D&D is likely to provide and still be called D&D: GM-less, prep-less play with a strong focus on permissive storytelling and freedom of choice. Someone is going to find the right combo and it is going to be White Wolf all over again. That's not a dig against anyone, I just think it is what happens when gamers "grow up" (irrespective of age; I mean relative to how long they have been playing their introductory game). Of course, predicting exactly what that is going to be is the million dollar challenge.

The Quest RPG seemed like it was trying really hard to exploit that opportunity, but it doesn't seem like it caught on. Maybe it just needs more time, though...

 

[Reynard]

The Quest RPG seemed like it was trying really hard to exploit that opportunity, but it doesn't seem like it caught on. Maybe it just needs more time, though...

Interesting. I'm probably not the target audience but this is the first I have heard of it.

I don't know what the development status is, but maybe the super kickstarted Avatar game is the thing?

 

[Parmandur]

I wonder if that last bit is true though.

WotC have becoming extremely profitable, and D&D's success is a big part of that, but whilst D&D has some merchandise from WotC it certainly seems like the the current main profit-driver is rules/books sales. That might not continue indefinitely, and I've talked before about how D&D seems to be in the process of ceasing to be an RPG, and becoming a sort of "lifestyle" brand which is merely linked to an RPG. But even then, it seems likely they'd want to sell stuff beyond the basics, though whether on a per-book basis or a subscribe-to-get-all basis I don't know (it looks like the latter model is increasing in popularity, c.f. the expansion of Gamepass by Microsoft for example).

I mean, even Disney, who people have suggested makes most of its money from merchandise and parks, doesn't, actually - it makes about 1/3rd of it from that, the rest being from TV/movies (via various networks), except for 11% which is from licencing. I feel like WotC are kind of moving towards that model, but a subscription model, certainly to go beyond the basics, seems more likely than a pure F2P one with cosmetics.

The game is doing well, but those lifestyle items are adding up. O risk for wotC, pure reward, for every t-shirt, notebook, and children's book (and there are a lot of children's books now).

 

[Parmandur]

Ew gross. I hated the Monstrous Compendium model.

Wel, they are doing something with the free online Monsters. Maybe do free online Compendiums, and do illustrated collection books full of popularly used Mosnters. Who knows. But they are not limited.by traditional models.

 

[Vaalingrade]

no iteration of D&D is likely to provide and still be called D&D:

This issue is going to become less and less relevant and less of a sticking point as time goes on.

That, or the brand will eventually go the way of Sears or Borders.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. I'm probably not the target audience but this is the first I have heard of it.

I don't know what the development status is, but maybe the super kickstarted Avatar game is the thing?

Avatar isn't a new system, it's Powered by the Apocalypse, which is a fairly popular alternative these days.

However, I think the Zeeleniel RPG is...D&D. And WotC is actively working to maintain that with the changes being made.

 

[Reynard]

Avatar isn't a new system, it's Powered by the Apocalypse, which is a fairly popular alternative these days.

Yes. Why, I can't fathom but lots of people seem to like it. My point was that given how big that KS was I wonder if PbtA IS the Vampire of 2020s.

However, I think the Zeeleniel RPG is...D&D. And WotC is actively working to maintain that with the changes being made.

I haven't seen any actual mechanical changes that look to be solving the combat focus problem that a lot of younger story first players have discovered the system.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Excellent point. Who is actually asking for a new edition, aside from WotC shareholders?

I mean, you can say this about literally every edition. 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E, all of them had significantly less than 100% of players asking for a new edition. Especially if you looked at the people actually playing them. 3E was probably the most-demanded, because 2E was really looking incredibly old-hat by the end of the '90s. 5E was interesting because a lot of people were pretty dismissive about the idea until it was fairly close to release ("I've got Pathfinder, why would I want a WotC effort?" and so on).

To be honest, I'd like to see a new edition that goes a little further than WotC has been suggesting this one will, like fixes more things (particularly mechanically), and actually innovates a bit (particularly in the exploration pillar, which 5E has very poor support for).

Re: backwards compatibility, I think it's smart to do that, but it also means, imho, the next edition will likely have a shorter lifespan, and likely will be follow by a more significant edition change.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This issue is going to become less and less relevant and less of a sticking point as time goes on.

That, or the brand will eventually go the way of Sears or Borders.

evolve or die.... 3e was evolution of 2e. 5e was too (I am skipping 4e to avoid fights). if you took 5e back to 1981 no one would recognize it as D&D. if this continues 7e or 8e could look as different to a 2001 player of 3e as 5e would to a 1981 1e player