D&D 5E L&L - D&D Next Goals, Part One

[DaveMage]

The article seems to imply that the core box will have a complete campaign in it. If true, I think that's a *great* idea.

The danger they face with "modularity" beyond that is how do they create products for people not using all of the modules? So if I'm playing with Modules, A, C and E, will an adventure product cover that? And lets say I'm playing an adventure that's released before Module E was available? Does that mean I have to do significant extra work as GM to make it work?

Will the modularity significantly confuse people?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I suspect that this means a core product with levels 1 - 20 and most of what would have been found in the Players Handbook, followed by more robust and thematic supplements. A combination of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and the beginner box.

Supplements might look like the APG or Heroes of Battle.

 

[Ratskinner]

WotC estimate that there are maybe 6 million active gamers, and some 20 million people who have ever played D&D. How many days do Walmart take to serve that many people? Is it as much as one week?

According to this page. Walmart serves around 100M people/week. So what...a bit less than 2 days to serve 20M people?

 

[delericho]

The danger they face with "modularity" beyond that is how do they create products for people not using all of the modules?

It's tricky, but shouldn't be impossible. Basically, they should assume people are using the 'core' modules (whatever they are) but are not using any supplementary modules (except where absolutely essential). However, they should write in such a way that they don't exclude people who are using whatever supplementary modules, again except where absolutely essential.

So if I'm playing with Modules, A, C and E, will an adventure product cover that? And lets say I'm playing an adventure that's released before Module E was available? Does that mean I have to do significant extra work as GM to make it work?

For the most part, I would expect published campaigns to use only the core modules, plus possibly a single module designed especially for that campaign (for example, the Birthright AP might include a domain management module). I don't expect there to be many exceptions to this - adventures are a hard sell at the best of times, so they'll need to make sure they exclude as few people as possible.

I would also expect to see the 'big' modules being produced first, with more niche modules coming later and having a smaller footprint in the game. That way, if using an adventure from before module E was published, although there will inevitably be some rework required, it will be kept to a minimum.

Of course, I also fully expect that most of the planned modules will never see the light of day, except perhaps in a very skeletal form in an "Unearthed Arcana" type of book.

Will the modularity significantly confuse people?

I suspect not - I would expect the core product to have few if any modules included, for size reasons if nothing else, and for those modules to be very 'light' in nature. For the more advanced players who are likely to seek out modules, it will probably be no different from the old model of "we're the Complete books and the Expanded Psionics Handbook, but absolutely not BoXD!".

 

[Stormonu]

I think one of the things Mearls is touching on is we won't see the split of the rules like they did with essentials (Rules Comp., Heroes of..., DM box set, etc.). Likewise, it sounds as if they do an intro box it will be a self-contained game - prehaps more like the Holmes/Moldvay and less like the Mentzer/PF beginner box. Certainly not another Red Box.

Personally, I'd like to see a 5E box game that covers 1-3 or 1-5 (or best yet, 1-10) put out before the 1-20 rulebook, but it doesn't sound like they are really considering that. That's a shame.

 

[Nellisir]

That being the case, their optimum strategy may well be to have a single, deluxe boxed set that is "Dungeons & Dragons"

I don't want to call it "the new thing", but the new thing seems to be board games. A single, deluxe boxed set, somewhere in the $50 - $70 price range. We just had a new game store open in town: almost exclusively board games (more than I've seen in my life), and they have board game nights twice a week. Been full every time I've stopped by, and the university isn't even in session right now. And they've only been open 6 weeks.

So WotC having a base product that fits in with those makes sense to me.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The cynic in me read this:

Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.

and immediately said, "of course the ENDURING elements of the game, the ones that they DECIDE to call The Core, are simply the ones they haven't screwed up in some previous revision of the game." I'm not saying he necessarily meant that. More that like others I laud the goals but question the chances for success in acheiving them having seen dubious evidence thus far, and am presently of the mind that we may just have to wait until it arrives to have a properly informed opinion.

I believe there is also such a thing as edition fatigue. Regardless of whether they want to do great honor to previous editions and what they did well, the fact is that it will NOT BE any previous edition - it will be a new edition and will involve learning a new edition as such. It will still need to convince 6 million existing players that it's worth the effort to GIVE UP whatever edition they are currently playing.

We're going to make an RPG product called Dungeons & Dragons. It will be the game, Dungeons & Dragons, not just a sampler or a game that guides you through making a character and playing a single adventure. You can buy D&D and play a full, tabletop RPG campaign. You will be able to start playing, regardless of experience, and will easily find other products to migrate to if you so desire.

This tells me simply that the box will include a campaign setting and enough adventures to keep newbie players busy playing a campaign from 1st level to X-level. After that they go back and play it again, make more stuff up themselves, or start buying additional product.

 

[Iosue]

When I read this article, I see "fewer and fewer players were moving deeper into additional material such as the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual", "early 1980s", "not just a sampler or a game that guides you through making a character and playing a single adventure" and "will easily find other products to migrate to if you so desire", and see Mearls saying they are going back to a D&D/AD&D split. Which is not to say they are going to create competing lines with different names. But it sounds to me like he's saying they are going to have a core game that is essentially like B/X (early 1980s!), and then "advanced" options in the Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual. Players can go for the whole hawg of modules and optional systems, or they can stay with a simple, minimalist core game, and both will be supported with largely compatible adventures. The core game will be perfectly playable in and of itself, but will also act as a feeder system to the other products.

It's a model that worked pretty well for TSR back in the day.

 

[howandwhy99]

We can't change the core game to accommodate those later options, whether they're new classes or detailed rules for climbing. The core must remain unchanged as you add more rules.

This is how the new version of D&D could fail. No game can be D&D and cover all the historically popular play styles. This is not just about the addition of more modules, but the radical redesigning of the playtest and the re-imagining of the core assumptions of play from as they stand right now.

For instance, most early Dungeons & Dragons didn't even include "Checks" in the game, and definitely not as game theorists label them today. Now checks appear to be the only reason to roll dice. Are we even going to make a version of the D&D that doesn't include narrative resolution?

One option could be to publish multiple versions of D&D Next with the components of the core mechanics redesigned and reinterpreted in multiple ways so that many of the different D&D play styles are supported. However, no one design - even of a simplified core game - can be used to support all play styles. Not even close.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Producing a single product as the base set for everyone to start with is almost certainly the right approach. The simple truth is that in-print products are already a marginal proposition, and will only become less attractive as an offering as years go by. That being the case, they should probably aim to a small number of big selling items. And they need to avoid competing with themselves at all costs - don't have both a crippleware boxed set and a PHB containing the 'real game'.

That being the case, their optimum strategy may well be to have a single, deluxe boxed set that is "Dungeons & Dragons" (possibly including a single "Core Rulebook" that they could then also sell separately - but if they do this, the key is that it must be the same CR in both cases), and thereafter look to convert as many people as possible into DDI subscribers. Any additional in-print support should probably come after the same material has been on DDI for some time (if at all) - this allows them to sort out the necessary errata before the book goes to print (whereas 4e did the opposite, quickly rendering the printed books obselete).



The 4e Red Box really isn't a terribly good product. A much better boxed set might well be more successful.



WotC estimate that there are maybe 6 million active gamers, and some 20 million people who have ever played D&D. How many days do Walmart take to serve that many people? Is it as much as one week?

That's why they're always interested in going for non-hobbyists - we're a drop in the ocean, at best.

Of course...



There's a rather worrying possible explanation for this: the D&D brand is sufficiently interesting, and the idea of the game sufficiently interesting that lots of people are willing to give it a try. But once they experience the reality of the game, huge numbers of them find it's just not for them, and walk away.

And that's why lots of people try the game out, but very few 'graduate'.

The last part of your post is what scares me with their logic. Oh "1 million people tried this product so it must be good". If you are selling a one time product then you may get away with "initial sales" but when you are trying to get people into something to where they will buy more, that logic won't cut it. We don't know how many people tried that product and found they hated it. You have to be careful when you are blindly following the numbers.