Mike Mearls Answers Questions About "Dungeons and Dragons Next"

[scadgrad]

I certainly don't want to derail this commentary, but I think the most telling comment is where MM alludes to the fact that as early as 2010, they realized 4E was costing them customers and were starting to make plans to change/evolve/de-volve, wtvr.

I find it funny how, within our group, most of the players generally loathe 4E but love the simplicity and fun of the Ravenloft box set. Even a wooly old grognard like me digs it (with the exception of the deal-breaking Dragonborn for me at least). Having said that, I expect I'm not the only lapsed customer who feels this way and it's quite likely that they have data to back this up.

 

[SteveC]

Interesting stuff. Whenever I see things like this, I always think it answers the question "how is D&D different than any other roleplaying game?"

I doubt a new edition of any other RPG would hit the radar for MTV. It's still pretty cool that D&D can create this level of response for RPGs in general.

 

[gweinel]

Hi,
i read through these forums that 4E finds its inspiration to the "european" style of game? If understand correct, what do you mean by that? Is there a data that the europeans are focused on the tactical side of the game, while the us to the rp one? Are there any interviews or data of that claim?

 

[Guest 85555]

Hi,
i read through these forums that 4E finds its inspiration to the "european" style of game? If understand correct, what do you mean by that? Is there a data that the europeans are focused on the tactical side of the game, while the us to the rp one? Are there any interviews or data of that claim?

They were just trying to say that the designers of 4E took some inspiration from European Board Games (we sometimes call them Eurogames). It wasn't a statement about European play styles or them having a preference for tactics.

 

[darjr]

I like that they'll look at new innovations in gaming for use in the rpg only if they are reasonable for an rpg. I do hope it doesn't go to far and stifle otherwise worthy changes.

though now I really want to see and play a forgotten realms branded settlers of catan with rules and flavor appropriate for the realms. or an eberron rails game.

 

[darjr]

or a greyhawk sandbox kingdom building carcasone

 

[Erdrick Dragin]

But why are they so hellbent on trying to bring in a new demographic to the game? Why risk grabbing the attention of WoW players that will barely bat an eye at something like D&D when they have a huge market to begin with?

That market being the gamers of the 4 editions already? Which, with this new edition, may seem like what they're going for.

I never got into D&D because of some obscure ad in a video game magazine or from a random Dragon Magazine lying somewhere. But I really don't think any sort of advertisement would've got me into D&D, for several reasons.

But I got into D&D because my cousin was introduced by another gamer, and in turn introduce it to me at the age of 14, when I all I cared to play were video games. He hooked me and I hooked over 10 of my friends after that, who still play to this day.

That's how to market the game. Make it continually appealing to the base you have and then the base they bring in, don't anger them with new editions and failing to continue to support

Which is what I am wondering with this new approach. Clearly, it seems, they are wanting to bring back the bases they angered. And to unify them. But what I want to know is what kind of support will they get?

I assume all the rules support will be there; the basic rules and then, as they said, they can use existing material from their current edition they play to tack on with no problems. But what about NEW material?

Will we get a book that has new class kits, new prestige classes, new paragon paths, new feats for 3e and the same set of feats converted to 4e on the same section, 3 sets of spells with different rules for the 4 editions, all on one book? Or is it going to be 1 book per edition of the game with all new material, releasing new crunch material slowly like Pathfinder does?

And how will they do the monsters? Will it be the stats for a monster in 1e, followed by a little sidebar upgrading it to 2e (since 1e and 2e and very close in rules style), and then squeeze on the same page (or possibly 2 pages per monster) the 3e and 4e stats?

That's my 2nd concern besides the "unified" ruleset.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's how to market the game. Make it continually appealing to the base you have and then the base they bring in, don't anger them with new editions and failing to continue to support

Word of mouth is certainly a valid marketing goal. Hard to control and track, though, which is why marketers like to back it up with other plans. They certainly should give us all the tools we need as (primarily) DM's to teach as many people as possible to play. It really is the best way to learn the game - play it. (Also, making it good enough that people who try it want to play again is an obvious goal.)

I assume all the rules support will be there; the basic rules and then, as they said, they can use existing material from their current edition they play to tack on with no problems. But what about NEW material?

Will we get a book that has new class kits, new prestige classes, new paragon paths, new feats for 3e and the same set of feats converted to 4e on the same section, 3 sets of spells with different rules for the 4 editions, all on one book? Or is it going to be 1 book per edition of the game with all new material, releasing new crunch material slowly like Pathfinder does?

I could be wrong, I suppose, but I don't think they're talking about the game actually supporting the rules of the previous editions. I think conversion may be easier than before (which is what they mean by old books being more viable than they usually are after edition changes) but they don't really mean "You will be able to play a 1st edition Wizard next to a 4e Fighter" they mean there will be class-builds or sub-classes that FEEL like a 1st edition Wizard or a 4th edition Fighter or insert-your-favorite-edition-and-class-character-here.

Hi,
i read through these forums that 4E finds its inspiration to the "european" style of game? If understand correct, what do you mean by that? Is there a data that the europeans are focused on the tactical side of the game, while the us to the rp one? Are there any interviews or data of that claim?

I don't know where you get the impression that the tactical aspect of 4e is what was compared to eurogames. Or that somehow not being focused on tactics somehow makes you focused on RP. There is not a sliding scale with tactics on one side and RP on the other. And neither have anything to do with eurogames.

I certainly don't want to derail this commentary, but I think the most telling comment is where MM alludes to the fact that as early as 2010, they realized 4E was costing them customers and were starting to make plans to change/evolve/de-volve, wtvr.

I think they tried using Essentials to make the game more like what they thought people were missing from 4e and it only served to divide the people who liked 4e into two camps while bringing very few previous-edition holdouts back to the game. I like 4e and I like Essentials, but in the end, it further split the community, which I'm pretty sure was not one of it's design goals.

This made them think "We can't keep doing this." And rightly so.

 

[Griego]

But why are they so hellbent on trying to bring in a new demographic to the game? Why risk grabbing the attention of WoW players that will barely bat an eye at something like D&D when they have a huge market to begin with?

That market being the gamers of the 4 editions already? Which, with this new edition, may seem like what they're going for.

I never got into D&D because of some obscure ad in a video game magazine or from a random Dragon Magazine lying somewhere. But I really don't think any sort of advertisement would've got me into D&D, for several reasons.

But I got into D&D because my cousin was introduced by another gamer, and in turn introduce it to me at the age of 14, when I all I cared to play were video games. He hooked me and I hooked over 10 of my friends after that, who still play to this day.

That's how to market the game. Make it continually appealing to the base you have and then the base they bring in, don't anger them with new editions and failing to continue to support

Which is what I am wondering with this new approach. Clearly, it seems, they are wanting to bring back the bases they angered. And to unify them. But what I want to know is what kind of support will they get?

I assume all the rules support will be there; the basic rules and then, as they said, they can use existing material from their current edition they play to tack on with no problems. But what about NEW material?

Will we get a book that has new class kits, new prestige classes, new paragon paths, new feats for 3e and the same set of feats converted to 4e on the same section, 3 sets of spells with different rules for the 4 editions, all on one book? Or is it going to be 1 book per edition of the game with all new material, releasing new crunch material slowly like Pathfinder does?

And how will they do the monsters? Will it be the stats for a monster in 1e, followed by a little sidebar upgrading it to 2e (since 1e and 2e and very close in rules style), and then squeeze on the same page (or possibly 2 pages per monster) the 3e and 4e stats?

That's my 2nd concern besides the "unified" ruleset.

Why wouldn't they go after the WoW demographic? Ten million possible sales... that's a lot of books. I really doubt the entire D&D market across all editions is in the tens of millions of players. Of course, if you change too much to attract a new demographic, you alienate your core audience, which is what happened with 4e. Now you're seeing the recovery attempt.

 

[the Jester]

Instead of another "Red Box" for 5th ed / next / whatever... maybe they should consider a board game version of the game for their "gateway" product.

IMHO that misses the point of a new edition and keeping e.g. the D&D rpg a separate game from e.g. the D&D board games and card games.

There's no reason why the existing board games should go out of print with a new edition anyway; though they are built around 4e, they don't require a PH or Rules Compendium or anything.