D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Chris_Nightwing]

I was just reading through the thread about interpretation of rules, which wandered into a discussion of the marketing and reception of different editions. [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] provided an interesting description of D&D history in which he posited that Pathfinder was a branching point in the game that has now become a complete parallel species (as opposed to older editions which make up a smaller section of the market). Many people have been suggesting that it will be impossible to please all players (or more specifically, both the fans of 3E/PF and 4E).

So maybe this is the moment for the game to diverge, deliberately. Perhaps this chance was missed when 4E was developed, but if WotC want to regain control of the hobby (which 5E is most definitely an attempt to do) then maybe they need to face that one game can no longer do this. Obviously, this would require the greatest feat of PR and marketing the industry has ever seen, but it might just be worth a try.

Historically, there have been a couple of precedents, I would say, for branching (or parallel games), though not on the same terms as the one I propose here. World of Darkness deliberately offers three different games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage plus minor editions) within the same fictional construct, which have the same mechanical principles, but (I think) cater to different tastes. I would also cite the recent Trail of Cthulhu as a branching from Call of Cthulhu, though it was not published by the same company. These both take place in the same world, rely on the same material but play very differently mechanically (and I think play side-by-side, I am happy to run/play both).

So what would our two branches look like? I'm not going to say just 3E and 4E, revised, that's too easy. Instead I would suggest that they consider what each side of the argument enjoy about their games.

For the 4E-fan, I would suggest that precise tactical combat is a must, and I think it would be further appreciated if there were more detailed rules for handling non-combat situations. So, make skill challenges work, offer mechanics for resolving social situations, both with the same dynamic and precise approach 4E combat offers. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers.

For the older-school branch I would focus the core game on more traditional concepts. I would relegate gridded combat to an option, perhaps developing some more rules of thumb and advice for theatre of the mind combat. I wouldn't support the dozens of classes and races that have existed over the years, instead focusing on tradition. This doesn't mean it has to be a retroclone, but to me, right now, 5E is headed more in this direction, whilst it has only recently tried to cover the other branch with the sorcerer/warlock drafts. This branch would not try to govern exploration or social interactions mechanically, though it could offer skill/proficiency support, and combat needn't be boring, but would certainly be more focused on getting the job done rather than round-by-round tactical decisions.

Does this sound like a good idea? Is it possible to clearly branch the game into two versions, offering different experiences? Would this just make everyone even angrier? What would you even call the two games (Dungeons.. and.. Dragons..)?

 

[Balesir]

It seems to me there are three things that DDN could plausibly offer, from here:

1) A clone/revision of one of the previous editions' experiences with a few tweaks.

2) A totally new experience that works well for a new and different style of "D&D".

3) A kludged compromise that kinda-sorta offers what some or all previous editions offered.

Of these, (1) will please only those who like(d) the edition emulated, (2) might please a new (sub)section of fans and (3) is unlikely to please anybody much. Of the three, I would think (2) would be the best outcome, but multiple (1) versions to suit the various strains of enjoyment could be excellent, if it could be pulled off. I think that's a big "if", though - and the task would start with figuring out what exactly the different strains want!

 

[Dexamalion]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Diversification always leads to confusion in the market place, and I think two versions of D&D with different rulesets would just create more bitterness and a greater divide in the hobby.

Perhaps instead we should be looking to create a unified system with different, bolt-on options that satisfy the home brew tinkering many people like to construct. You dip your toe in this a little in your OP, if we have a series of rules for grid based combat, and a series of rules for theatre of the mind combat, there's no reason these two can't work together.

At any rate, I don't think I'd be in favour of branching into two versions to try and satisfy two groups of players, because you will always alienate somebody. Provide a stable core base of rules that can be utilized a number of ways (easier said that done, I grant) and make the bolt-on sections optional.

 

[Jupp]

Also keep in mind that branching out means increased headcount, dividing existing resources and advertising on multiple rails if you want to do it properly. And if there is one thing that the management will usually rip apart in any kind of new business plan then it is if one of the bullet points has "headcount increase" in it. Unless the business plan promises that headcount increase comes without spending more money, which usually is the same as promising someone to make gold out of lead.

 

[Balesir]

Perhaps instead we should be looking to create a unified system with different, bolt-on options that satisfy the home brew tinkering many people like to construct. You dip your toe in this a little in your OP, if we have a series of rules for grid based combat, and a series of rules for theatre of the mind combat, there's no reason these two can't work together.

I think that would, at best, achieve what I numbered (3). The idea that the "stylistic differences" boil down to "tactical grid combat or theatre of the mind" seems to me to be spectacularly disproved by some of the longer discussions around here. Some modularity within a strong "basic paradigm" could work, but changing paradigm with modules I think will fail.

Also keep in mind that branching out means increased headcount, dividing existing resources and advertising on multiple rails if you want to do it properly. And if there is one thing that the management will usually rip apart in any kind of new business plan then it is if one of the bullet points has "headcount increase" in it. Unless the business plan promises that headcount increase comes without spending more money, which usually is the same as promising someone to make gold out of lead.

Oh, yeah, I have seen this in business alright! The conclusion I have come to is that the correct (though not necessarily popular) action is to tell "the management" straight: "if you want added capacity you have to pay; either suck it up or plan to work with no added capacity. Simple as that."

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I was wondering about the business point of view on this. In many industries, individual companies will offer directly competing products, especially when there are competing companies in the same market. They might aim them at different consumers, however, in order to capture more of the demographic. I don't know whether this sort of thing applies in gaming, or specifically in roleplaying. There are a thousand editions of monopoly, and they presumably are profitable in some manner, but they are selling on different terms. In roleplaying, the closest I can think of is World of Darkness again, where the different games fill slightly different niches. I don't know how many people here play only D&D, but I get the impression that most run and play in other games, be they completely different genres or systems, or close to D&D, even different editions. Personally, I ravenously bought up 3E books, at the same time still buying CoC campaigns, and I bought SWSE and d20 Modern and each of them saw play. Just in terms of sales, I probably wouldn't buy every book for both branches of the game, but I would definitely buy the core versions of each, because you can never have enough books, or choices of game, in my experience.

 

[Yora]

For those who like 4th Edition, there is 4th Edition to play.

I think 5th Edition is for those who are neither really happy with 3rd or 4th.

 

[Jupp]

There are a thousand editions of monopoly, and they presumably are profitable in some manner, but they are selling on different terms. In roleplaying, the closest I can think of is World of Darkness again, where the different games fill slightly different niches. I don't know how many people here play only D&D, but I get the impression that most run and play in other games, be they completely different genres or systems, or close to D&D, even different editions.

Two things here: Monopoly is basically almost always the exact same game just with a different sugar coating. Same rules, same layout, different graphics. So I would not really compare that to something like a D&D edition. Also I think that the majority of rpg'ers is playing only a single edition and they either stay with it or migrate to another one, leaving the former edition behind. I think only the hardcore gamers are those that actually play different ruleset or editions at the same time.

 

[Herschel]

I was wondering about the business point of view on this. In many industries, individual companies will offer directly competing products, especially when there are competing companies in the same market. They might aim them at different consumers, however, in order to capture more of the demographic.

And chain retailers tend to overlap "service" areas because (a) they want to make sure they cover as much area as possible, (b) products are readily available to customers even if stock at one location is out, and (c) If a customer becomes dissatisfied with one particular store for whatever reason they may still be patrons of another store in the chain.

Increased headcount or not, what we see of DDN so far isn't going to be close to unifying, and that may just be the way it is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why do we seem so unwilling to accept the idea that the reason WotC is creating a new edition because it is keeping some people employed, they'll sell a bunch of product, and they'll make some money? Then, when the products they produce past that are not making the kind of money needed to keep people employed, they'll create another new edition in order to keep people employed, they'll sell a bunch of product, and they'll make some more money?

It seems like heaps of people keep trying to put some altruistic spin on all of this, where WotC is attempting to "save tabletop gaming" or "enlarge the playerbase" or "create a game that will unite all the fans" or other such platitudes.

Believe it or not... perhaps WotC is really much more mercenary in these endeavors than it seems people are willing to think? And that the company as a whole don't really care that they annoyed a bunch of players (who went on to switch to Pathfinder), because they still sold quite enough 4E books and DDI subscriptions to do what they needed... which was keep people employed, sell some product, and make some money? And if/when DDN gets released and annoy a bunch of players (who decide to stick with 4E), they still won't care because they still will see enough sales to keep people employed, sell some product, and make some money.

WotC is a business. And their business is making money. And for all we know... their desire to "do right by the game and by the fans" (as we all seem to want to put this identity onto them) only goes so far as long as it helps them keep people employed, sell a bunch of product, and make some money.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It does seem to me like splitting up the game (or making the existing split official) would solve more problems than it would cause, but it would not solve all problems and it would cause quite a few

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Diversification always leads to confusion in the market place, and I think two versions of D&D with different rulesets would just create more bitterness and a greater divide in the hobby.

I will never understand this mindset. It's like Kool Aid only making orange or Ford only making Pintos. I know I often go to the store for Mountain Dew and get home and find out I mistakenly bought Pepsi. And I curse those that like that Code Red crap. I think I'll boycott the company and start drinking Coke!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

They're already doing this, since as we all know, every new edition is basically a fork.

If they want to be productive about it, I'd say they should make sure that 5e collects all the 1e through 3.5e players that are actually collectable, and please all but the most hardcore wargaming-style 4e fans. Then continue 4e at a reduced pace alongside 5e, so the aforementioned hardcore wargaming-style fans remain happy.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see them try and split the game out in two - a lite version for those who want to "dabble" in the game and an "advanced" version for those who want to go whole hog.

The lite version would be maybe from 1st-10th and be an all-in-one purchase. Rules would be geared more towards the 1st playtest in complexity - light on rules and options. It would be expected a one-off purchase; where it would make its money is either selling supplement modules or simple volume of purchases. Sort of like the old B/X set of D&D - with no plans for companion, master or immortal rules.

The advanced version would be the three-book setup we're used to with the hundreds of supplements and add-ons. Character and play options would be on the order of 3E/4E; tons of stuff to delve as deep as you want.

If the two systems were moderately compatible (in the way you could pretty much interchange BECM and AD&D modules), I think you'd get most of the crowd and might even be able to expand a bit.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Forking two branches at once would be business suicide. Might as well detonate the meteor swarm at your feet, and forgo the saving throw.

Now, you could make a case for taking the existing 3.5 and 4E platforms and continuing them with mild support while working on Next. I don't think I'd buy that argument when it was done, but maybe someone has a surprise slant on it. Presumably, this would eventually morph into something where they lines weave in and out, with particular lines eventually being dropped, after some other line has largely taken over their responsibilities.

However, I think overall the modular solution of one base platform is a better architecture for WotC, fans, and ultimate financial success. See, the problem with the branching is that it assumes things such as 4E people all being totally enamored of the grid while 3E people don't like it. When reality is that people put up with some things in their favorite version because they like other things. Options on top of a base lets, to a certain extent, each table pick their version.

An RPG is part product, part building element. The "branch" argument treats it too much like all product. If you buy a Mac, you probably don't want the PC, or vice versa. (You may have some of each, especially if a business, but one person won't use both at the same time.) Where as the building element is more like parts that you then turn around and use the way you want. Quick, for the flooring in your new house, do you want all carpet or all tile or all hardwood? Do you want all green paint or all beige paint?

 

[hamstertamer]

D&D has branched out in many different ways, and has a little with every edition. The biggest branches, as of now, is 3rd edition D&D (12 years going ) and 4th edition (4 years going). I honestly believe that it best not to try and squeeze everyone who is a fan of D&D in the same box, and I can see that "5th edition" will only cause more issues in the long run.

I honestly believe that it is okay to like what you like and not compromise. There does not need to be a compromise, there shouldn't be one. No one dies if no one agrees. It's fine. Only the corporation wants that, because it has ownership of ip rights, and wants to sell to the public.

It is my opinion that the D&D namebrand, as far as selling it as a namebrand, is ruined beyond repair. They (Hasbro) will never be able to get the huge collective response to their product every again. No one needs Hasbro to make D&D for them.

 

[Balesir]

Where as the building element is more like parts that you then turn around and use the way you want. Quick, for the flooring in your new house, do you want all carpet or all tile or all hardwood? Do you want all green paint or all beige paint?

For once I disagree with you, and I think your analogies are off.

If WotC produce a kludged compromise mix I think they'll be selling purely on brand alone, and that means a death spiral for the sales and the brand.

D&D is not my roleplaying "house" - it's a room in the house, at best. Other RPGs make up the other rooms. And, in the one room, yes, I do want harmony and consistency in the decoration and furnishings, even if I reserve the right to change them around a bit from time to time

 

[Crazy Jerome]

For once I disagree with you, and I think your analogies are off.

If WotC produce a kludged compromise mix I think they'll be selling purely on brand alone, and that means a death spiral for the sales and the brand.

D&D is not my roleplaying "house" - it's a room in the house, at best. Other RPGs make up the other rooms. And, in the one room, yes, I do want harmony and consistency in the decoration and furnishings, even if I reserve the right to change them around a bit from time to time

If they produce a kludged compromise mix, I agree with you. Good modular products are not kludged compromises, though. Now, whether or not WotC can produce a good modular product is thus the big question.

And you'll note that I said part product, part building element. D&D isn't a room in your house. It isn't the whole house, either. It's more like a wing. Well, ok, for you maybe the D&D wing is only one room. But it isn't that way for everyone, and if they try to sell that exact room to everyone, they fail. If they try to sell whole houses to those that will accept the kludged compromise, they fail. Somewhere in the middle is the balancing act that can succeed.

 

[Obryn]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the 4E crowd is also younger and prefers more elaborate, as opposed to traditional, fantasy, so this branch would offer more dragonmen and lasers.

My rapidly-approaching-40 eyebrow is raised. You can't see it, but it's there. There's head-shaking, too, as well as a deep sigh.

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Diversification always leads to confusion in the market place, and I think two versions of D&D with different rulesets would just create more bitterness and a greater divide in the hobby.

It might work better if one side of the branch were allowed to cleave off into a different line. For instance, D&D 5e could be a classic-D&D-successor, while the 4e-successor could be, IDK - Dominia: the RPG, complete with card mechanics? the TT side of an MMO franchise? Something /not/ D&D at any rate. I'm afraid the 3.5 fanbase just needs to be written off. Maybe publish all the D&D settings in edition-neutral or 5e + 3.5/Pathfinder-compatible formats to tap that market?

You'd avoid confusion by putting the D&D name on just one product line and focusing that line on it's roots, strengthening brand identity.