Multi-Edition D&D

[Gargoyle]

All the discussion about 5E and Mike Mearl's articles, and speculation about WotC downsizing and business strategy, got me thinking about a video I watched the other day with an author talking about Howard Moskowitz's detailed study on spaghetti sauces

It's a long rambling video, so to summarize, Moskowitz determined something about food that we almost take for granted today, but at the time was fairly new knowledge for the industry: People like different flavors of spaghetti sauce. There isn't one "best" flavor. There are several best flavors. Some like it spicy. Some like it with a lot of meat, some like it meatless, etc.

But there are still a certain number of flavors that are profitable to make. Making every possible combination isn't economically feasible, so you focus on the flavors that will capture the majority of the spaghetti sauce market, including significant numbers of people who don't currently like spaghetti sauce because no one is making their preferred flavor yet.

The more I think about it, the more I think that if there is a new edition of D&D coming, it should come in more than one flavor, that is, more than one ruleset should be fully supported at the same time to support the varying tastes of D&D players.

This is something that has happened before. BECMI and AD&D coexisted in harmony when I started playing in '82, and I think it was a great time for the hobby to be a player or DM.

With much of the support going digital, it seems to me that it would be economically feasible to support multiple, active editions of D&D at the same time. IMO, an active 2E, 3E, 4E, and a limited Essentials line would be ideal if they decide to do something new with a limited staff.

In this primarily digital environment, adventures could economically be published in multiple versions. Print hopefully wouldn't be dead, but perhaps be limited to core products of each flavor.

This isn't a new idea by any means; I've seen numerous posters suggesting something similar in various threads. Mostly I'm posting this because seeing the Moskowitz video clicked with my memories of the BECMI / AD&D days, and I think that multiple edition support might be a worthy topic in itself for discussion.

 

[ferratus]

D&D Basic though was retired because it required support for two different fan bases, one of which was significantly smaller than the other. So it generally was a waste of money to cater to both, when they could more efficiently cater to one.

If we were to have different versions of D&D, we would have to have support for all those different editions.

Electronic distribution would probably help a lot, and an object oriented rules system like 4e (if not 4e itself) could probably handle overlapping support better.

However, it might be in the best interest of Hasbro to simply identify the largest demographic of potential customers, make a rules system to suit them, and then not support it at all. I wouldn't be surprised if D&D5e is just a single box with no settings, splatbooks, adventures, or accessories.

 

[Relique du Madde]

It actually isn't economically feasible from a logistics point of view and it would only lead to the second death of DnD*.


* Maybe third since one can argue that the creation of AD&D 2nd Edition was the first death (as a result of edition bloat), and the second, the bankruptcy of TSR, was expediated by the setting bloat.

 

[MacMathan]

I agree with the general concept but I think the key is where is the profitable cut off. The analogy of 2e campaign settings is a good one, TSR tried to suit every palate they could think of.

Some major market polling strength ans cash would have to be thrown into researching the current and future trends in players.

Another issue is what becomes the official Encounters type system that you try to grow and how important are the numbers on that to profitabilty. I don't know but WotC and Paizo seem to think it is worth running such programs.

I also think a VTT type project would be a very smart move for the future but it also needs to start with limited supported flavors whjch would be seen as the "favorites" by fans.

All I can say is I am glad I am not in charge of making those calls

 

[Gargoyle]

D&D Basic though was retired because it required support for two different fan bases, one of which was significantly smaller than the other. So it generally was a waste of money to cater to both, when they could more efficiently cater to one.

Sure, but BECMI was supported for a long time before that retirement. There were lots of adventures and supplements. It wasn't a failure, but just like all products, it ran its course.

If we were to have different versions of D&D, we would have to have support for all those different editions.

Electronic distribution would probably help a lot, and an object oriented rules system like 4e (if not 4e itself) could probably handle overlapping support better.

Those are my thoughts too.

However, it might be in the best interest of Hasbro to simply identify the largest demographic of potential customers, make a rules system to suit them, and then not support it at all. I wouldn't be surprised if D&D5e is just a single box with no settings, splatbooks, adventures, or accessories.

You may be right. All the settings, splatbooks, adventures and accessories could be digital, and popular downloads eligible for printing. It would probably really be a 4.75, the current edition brought up to the point where the designers felt extensive errata would not be required, maybe in a modular way where you can run it as Essentials, or add on more rules. Sort of what we have with Essentials + Compendium classes but with regard to the entire ruleset. It's an easy business model to get approval for when you're downsizing.

 

[Gargoyle]

It actually isn't economically feasible from a logistics point of view and it would only lead to the second death of DnD*.


* Maybe third since one can argue that the creation of AD&D 2nd Edition was the first death (as a result of edition bloat), and the second, the bankruptcy of TSR, was expediated by the setting bloat.

In some ways, D&D didn't die at all. Plenty of people still play earlier editions. WotC just isn't getting any income from it. My thinking is that with digital publishing, it could be economically viable to support multiple editions. Perhaps not only viable, but necessary for survival.

 

[Gargoyle]

I agree with the general concept but I think the key is where is the profitable cut off. The analogy of 2e campaign settings is a good one, TSR tried to suit every palate they could think of.

Yes, they sure did. Just about any type of campaign setting you could think of was thrown out there. And it wasn't a good move, because while there is more than one "best" setting, there aren't 50.

Some major market polling strength ans cash would have to be thrown into researching the current and future trends in players.

They don't have that cash. They have to rely on their experience and low cost research. This is why it's so hard for them to make good decisions in this economy.

Another issue is what becomes the official Encounters type system that you try to grow and how important are the numbers on that to profitabilty. I don't know but WotC and Paizo seem to think it is worth running such programs.

I also think a VTT type project would be a very smart move for the future but it also needs to start with limited supported flavors whjch would be seen as the "favorites" by fans.

I personally think a good VTT needs to be generic enough to support all sorts of RPGs. WotC doesn't have a good track record with their electronic products, and needs to keep these things functional but simple, and open source it so that fans can plug into it and get what they want out of it.

All I can say is I am glad I am not in charge of making those calls

Ditto.

 

[MacMathan]

I personally think a good VTT needs to be generic enough to support all sorts of RPGs. WotC doesn't have a good track record with their electronic products, and needs to keep these things functional but simple, and open source it so that fans can plug into it and get what they want out of it.

I agree with the open source idea but I don't think WotC or Hasbro is in that mindset after 3e and the changes with the character builder. They seem to wan to keep tight control and to try to make a revenue stream off of subscriptions.

The option that leaves them with is to take it to a good developer who has a lot of experience in multi-user online games. If I were boss for the day I would approach whoever has the game license and offer them an additional project to crank out the VTT based on an already existing engine. With its success then perhaps an argument could be made to add more games to it by licensing it out to other RPG companies.

However I am not sure what the status of the DnD game license is or if a more advanced VTT would get caught up in it.

 

[Locutus Zero]

Maybe a system where a given session can be combat light or combat heavy, and each class and maybe even each power works in each system. Like maybe in combat light there is no such thing as combat advantage (I'm imagining it works just a little more complicated than the board games), so a power grants 1d6 more damage with CA in combat heavy, or just 2 extra damage otherwise.

If each monster, power, etc were built to work in both systems, the two could live side by side and share support. Similar toggles could work for RP.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There's a idiom in marketing: "If you think everybody is your customer, then nobody is."

D&D simply needs to decide what it wants to be, and who it's for, and refine that. For those that like other flavors of spaghetti sauce, there's Traveler, Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, World of Darkness, FATE, Dragon Age, and dozens of other great games.

With Fourth Edition, they decided that D&D was going to be a high-octane, tactical combat oriented dungeon crawler. And it does that well.

So, is there still a big enough market for that, or do they need to change again? I don't know the answer. Perhaps it's possible to refine Fourth in such a way to steal players back from Pathfinder while still being appealing to the WoW players of the world. To create a sauce that is a favorite of both.

I like the idea, but it comes with a great risk of doing it wrong and losing both.