Mike Mearls Answers Questions About "Dungeons and Dragons Next"

[Bedrockgames]

I quite agree. I found the flavour very unapetising

That is odd. I think my ipdad autocorroct inserted that. Had meant to say it was a very good game. Dn't like 4E as an RPG, but the mechanics worked well for a board game.

 

[Griego]

Yea, I've heard all that before. I even kinda believe it. But if the new philosophy is to not try and make a game for all types of gamers (types of board gamers and video gamers and card gamers). Why not have the same for the older editions. Sure, they won't have the pop of the brand new edition but they would have this slow burn that would be positive and have players getting other players of all the editions they sold, and they'd be selling stuff to people they otherwise wouldn't be.

But I want to see 5e. And if they can really pull it off I'll be glad.

Rant: Why RPGs Are Not Too Expensive

Plenty of info here on the economics of large vs. small print runs. I really doubt WotC will ever fully support more than one edition in print. It costs too much. And it seems they're too afraid of piracy to do it with PDFs, which is a real shame.

 

[darjr]

Rant: Why RPGs Are Not Too Expensive

Plenty of info here on the economics of large vs. small print runs. I really doubt WotC will ever fully support more than one edition in print. It costs too much. And it seems they're too afraid of piracy to do it with PDFs, which is a real shame.

I still urge them to sell the PDF's again and hope they'll do so.

 

[Azgulor]

It was late 2010 that WotC first seriously started thinking about a new edition. This was prompted by divisions in the RPG community: "First, we had a divided audience. Second, if we kept altering the core of 4th Edition, the division would only become more apparent."

Holy crap! They were "seriously thinking" about a new edition after 2 years?!? The verdict is in, folks. 4e was a failure, at least in the eyes of the company that made it.

On the one hand, I'm stunned that this level of candor was allowed. On the other hand, however, I'm very impressed that Mearls is making what appears to be a genuine effort to overcome the sins of the past with the new edition.

I don't know that I'll ever return to D&D, but I applaud the effort to achieve a fresh start without assuming the customers will automatically be along for the ride. Huge difference from the 4e lead-up, so far, in my view.

 

[Dm_from_Brazil]

Holy crap! They were "seriously thinking" about a new edition after 2 years?!? The verdict is in, folks. 4e was a failure, at least in the eyes of the company that made it.

By this logic, 3e must have been a total crap-tastic failure, since, ONE YEAR after launch, WotC was working in a new edition - and yes, 3.5 WAS to be 4e - who tell us of that is none other than Monte Cook (THAT Monte, the one who is back), but somewhere in the middle high management decided that an "errata edition" would make good money and sooner than a later, more reworked edition (interestingly, one can say that is what is Pathfinder).

It has much more to do with the way WotC works - always creating NEW products/content (Magic, anyone?) - than with sucess/failure of an edition.

 

[Azgulor]

By this logic, 3e must have been a total crap-tastic failure, since, ONE YEAR after launch, WotC was working in a new edition - and yes, 3.5 WAS to be 4e - who tell us of that is none other than Monte Cook (THAT Monte, the one who is back), but somewhere in the middle high management decided that an "errata edition" would make good money and sooner than a later, more reworked edition (interestingly, one can say that is what is Pathfinder).

It has much more to do with the way WotC works - always creating NEW products/content (Magic, anyone?) - than with sucess/failure of an edition.

By your logic, reading comprehension is optional so long as you get to support your viewpoint. Here's the direct quote:

Admin here. No personal insults, please. ~ PCat

It was late 2010 that WotC first seriously started thinking about a new edition. This was prompted by divisions in the RPG community: "First, we had a divided audience. Second, if we kept altering the core of 4th Edition, the division would only become more apparent."

Note that he didn't say, "This was always the planned lifecycle for editions of D&D per the WotC business model." I wonder why he didn't?

By your logic, we should have seen the "errata edition". Except he specifically cites that they knew that continued alteration of the core of 4th edition would have exacerbated the problem.

Also, and I'll have to look for the article as I don't recall which interview it was, he expressed that a longer edition lifecycle would be desireable.

Was 3.5 a cash grab? Sure it was. However, it wasn't a brand new edition. It's also totally irrelevant to this thread as the direct quote clearly demonstrates. I'm sorry if that's a little too much reality introduced into your worldview, but 4e fans can't debate the source in this instance.

If you can't read his statement and realize that WotC was not happy with D&D's performance -- not that it was a bad, necessarily, but that it wasn't good enough from their business perspective -- then there's little more to be said without wasting time & breath.

 

[Alzrius]

By this logic, 3e must have been a total crap-tastic failure, since, ONE YEAR after launch, WotC was working in a new edition - and yes, 3.5 WAS to be 4e - who tell us of that is none other than Monte Cook (THAT Monte, the one who is back), but somewhere in the middle high management decided that an "errata edition" would make good money and sooner than a later, more reworked edition (interestingly, one can say that is what is Pathfinder).

Actually, you've gotten the story backwards.

Here's the relevant quote from Monte's review of 3.5

Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.

So in other words, WotC was divided (between the business and design teams) over the issue of - not a new edition - but a revision to the existing edition. Moreover, even the business teams, which did want to release 3.5, only wanted it to be an errata release.

Now, that's not what happened, but it's still not the same as saying "we're one year in, let's make a whole new edition!"

 

[Alzrius]

What is your point? They realized it. Isn't that enough? Guess not. Jeez. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe WotC shouldn't be listening to us.

You sort of answered your own questions, here. My point is that that second bullet point seems to show that WotC isn't listening to us.

That's why I brought it up. The tone WotC has been taking with the build-up to 5E is a very hopeful one, in that they've learned some lessons and want to reconnect with the game's past and listen to their community. That's the overarching message we're receiving from them.

I think that second bullet point dilutes that message, as it shows that it took the designers several years and at least one practical example to realize what a lot of people with far less experience and investment - the same people whose input they say they want now - to come to that same conclusion, and to say so publicly.

It's things like that which sour the hopeful tone they're taking now.