D&D General Ray Winninger on 5e’s success, product cadence, the OGL, and more.

[Scribe]

You're talking every year, Ray was suggesting 1 new core book each year out of 4 books considered to be core so you at worst would be buying a revised version of a single book every 4 years. I don't think that's a bad idea for a version of a game that has lasted a decade. In fact I think it could be a good thing if it allows designers a chance to fix things that after 3 years of play have been found to maybe not be the best idea ever.

"D&D Players" already complain about the trickle of books in terms of costs.

40K Players, dish out for 5 small dudes at $75 a pop.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-CA/shop/aeldari-fire-dragons-2025?queryID=15da1146df199865bb530f1ded0fda55

I dont see the appetite for putting D&D Players on the same treadmill as 40K players, but thats just me.

 

[ersatzphil]

"D&D Players" already complain about the trickle of books in terms of costs.

40K Players, dish out for 5 small dudes at $75 a pop.

https://www.warhammer.com/en-CA/shop/aeldari-fire-dragons-2025?queryID=15da1146df199865bb530f1ded0fda55

I dont see the appetite for putting D&D Players on the same treadmill as 40K players, but thats just me.

I'm not trying to undercut your point at all, but the fact that the pewter warp spiders I bought in middle school are still legal game pieces is significant, I think.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not trying to undercut your point at all, but the fact that the pewter warp spiders I bought in middle school are still legal game pieces is significant, I think.

Very much helps, then again there is a reason GW is moving units and options into the Legends category to introduce artificial rotation.

Combine that with

1. Lowering the price per unit.
2. Increasing the 'recommended' total army points limit.
3. Increasing the cost per box.

And its no wonder GW continues to rake it in.

The other issue with a yearly (or 3 year) refresh, is that the specifics of rules design change, and nothing is consistent.

To bring it back to D&D.

Do Monsters still cast Spells, can I Counterspell them?

Either way, I would absolutely have gotten off the D&D train earlier, if it was a yearly refresh schedule.

Play more Shadowdark folks.

 

[AlViking]

Core D&D is not a horror game, but certainly has horror elements in it, including classic horror monsters and a heavy dose of Cthulhu mythos inspiration.

I see it as trivially easy to shift from a more standard heroic mode of play to a horror mode. I don't really feel modifying the rules is necessary, but certainly can be done. It's easier at lower levels, but totes possible at higher levels also.

Why don't I simply play Call of Cthulhu? Because I don't want to? CoC is a very specific game style for a specific genre of horror, and it's a great game, but not one I'm overly interested in. If I really wanted to play a fantasy horror campaign, I probably would use D&D and modify the rules a bit . . . and my players would more likely go for that than me trying to get them into a different game.

Of course, I've got no issue with folks who don't feel D&D does horror well, even if I disagree. If you can convince your group to play CoC and everyone is having a horrifying time of it, then that's the way to go!

Also depends on what kind of horror you're thinking of, there's a wide variety. The we're all doomed to die so I can only avoid the inevitable is only one. Another extreme is the cinematic universe monster movies which cross over into action movies is right up DnD's alley. I sprinkle horror aspects into the game on a fairly regular basis if it's something my players enjoy, it's more a matter of attitude, descriptions and setting than rules to me. But it depends on what you define as horror because doing a Resident Evil style campaign would just be a normal campaign for a lot of people.

 

[dave2008]

Why? You just want to be on a constant cycle of refresh?

Yes. Though thinking about it I would probably extend the time between, so instead it is every 8 years or so. I am most interested in the idea of having the updated core books being updated on separate years.

 

[dave2008]

You can also house rule that paladins have to take 15 feet of movement forward and 5 feet horizontally, but at a certain point, you're better off just playing chess.

To be clear, as I mentioned previously, I don't think you have to do any house rules to make horror work in 5e. However, I never played D&D without some house rules so it would be unusual if I didn't implement some type of house rule or two.

 

[dave2008]

Unless you're trying to win a bet, though, it seems like a lot of work to avoid just using a ruleset like the Alien RPG that has rules that make horror come much more naturally at the table.

I have no issues with playing other games; however, I find this argument opposite of my experience. I find it to be a lot more work, like not even close, to learn and teach a new game than to modify a game I, and my group, know very well. YMMV of course

 

[TiQuinn]

To be clear, as I mentioned previously, I don't think you have to do any house rules to make horror work in 5e. However, I never played D&D without some house rules so it would be unusual if I didn't implement some type of house rule or two.

I think that horror in 5e works great at Tier 1 but as a PC progresses in level, that gets harder. I’d hate to run a horror campaign in Tier 3 or 4.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

You're talking every year, Ray was suggesting 1 new core book each year out of 4 books considered to be core so you at worst would be buying a revised version of a single book every 4 years. I don't think that's a bad idea for a version of a game that has lasted a decade. In fact I think it could be a good thing if it allows designers a chance to fix things that after 3 years of play have been found to maybe not be the best idea ever.

GW releases a new version of one of their rulesets every year - 2023 was 40K 10th edition, 2024 was Age of Sigmar 4th edition, this summer is supposed to be a new version of Horus Heresy ... if you play multiple games you're buying a new set of rules every 1-2-3 years, depending. It would be fairly similar to that "one new book every year plan" as effectively you would be getting a new edition of D&D every 4 years. You would just be getting it a bite at a time instead of all at once.

I suspect this was part of the point Mike M was trying to make earlier about monetizing D&D like Warhammer because while yes, you can play D&D in multiple ways, WOTC is not making money off of those beyond the occasional one-off book. A new edition of a GW game replaces the old edition - it doesn't add to it. Playing a skirmish game like Kill Team, even where you can use existing miniatures, gets people on board a separate edition & supplement train. An ongoing product line of campaign supplements like they did in 1E/2E/3E is probably the closest D&D analog to that but for various reasons they don't do that anymore.

This leaves aside the whole subscription thing that both WOTC & GW are gradually ramping up. That's another path to an ongoing steady revenue stream.

 

[Micah Sweet]

but they did that because that is what their playtest polls told them to do, which is basically the current player base.

That some players want something other than what is getting released will always be true. Less changes for full compatibility or more changes for a fresher feel both would also get criticism.

The point is they listened to their players instead of doing something else, which would presumably have been for the benefit of new players rather than to upset existing ones


so basically did what the majority wanted rather than either of the much smaller extreme ends. So how is that not catering to the existing base?

Amusingly, while it seems they listened to their current base as far as rules changes, they seem to have made up their own minds about lore.