D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?
JRRNeiklot
First Post
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!
Last edited:
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
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.
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
Legend
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.
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
First Post
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?
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
First Post
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.
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
Adventurer
For once I disagree with you, and I think your analogies are off.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?
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
First Post
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
Hero
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
Legend
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.
Similar Threads
- Poll
