Re-booting D&D with a new edition - how necessary is it?

[Mercurius]

Regarding the question, "Where can WotC find new gamers?" I am of two minds. On one hand, it seems that tabletop gaming is doomed to die a slow death, especially as we Gen Xers grow old and infirm. But many of us will likely stop gaming as the years go by, although a bunch of us will probably play until they spread our ashes in the waters of Lake Geneva. Some of our kids might play, and other new players trickle in, but not enough to equal the twin peaks of the early 2000s and the early 1980s. Once you factor in developments in virtual technology, the hobby could very well be a tenth of what it is today in 30 years.

On the other hand, with the proliferation of virtual technologies and the general increase in simulative media and entertainment, tabletop RPGs could enter a new Golden Age. Think of the popularity of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Fantasy as a whole may be more popular than ever. Healthy forms of "escape" may be more and more desirable given various cultural factors. I can cite one student of mine who played D&D for the first time last year and was overjoyed with his discovery - he was not a "gamerish" type but he simply loved D&D and last time I saw him was fretting about finding a game at college this year.

My point being, D&D and other RPGs might be just what the doctor ordered for many people. There are literally millions of people out there that might enjoy RPGs if they just gave one a shot - the key is getting them to the table. RPGs have an addictive quality in that once you start playing, it is hard to stop.

So the key question for Wizards of the Coast to ask, and the one I'm sure they are already asking, is: how do people to simply try Dungeons & Dragons? I think they are hoping that Essentials is the answer. I hope it is too, but I still think they haven't gone far enough, that they need an even more toned down, simple and basic game.

My current opinion is that when we see 5E it may look rather like 4E, but with a much simpler core, with a modular model of basic core and advanced options. I personally think that is one of the keys to making a game that more people would play. It is hard for gamers to realize that most people don't like number crunching and fiddly bits as much as we do; I have never actually tried to get my very non-gamerish wife to play, but I can imagine her not enjoying the complexity of the rules but liking the story aspect.

 

[DragonLancer]

Constant re-invention only erodes your base over time.

This is the question for me. Why does D&D need to be re-invented ever few years? I cannot think of any other game system that does this. Call of Cthulhu is almost the indentical system to what it was first released as. Same with Vampire: the Masquerade during it's three editions. Updates and minor variations, yes, but complete sweeps of systems no. So why does D&D get it?

 

[ggroy]

Let's go a bit further with this. Let's go back to 2006 or 2007. 3.5E products are rapidly coming out, with hundreds--if not thousands--of OGL products on the market. It is becoming more and more difficult to come up with viable products to sell, if only because each product becomes more and more specialized. It is probable that if something isn't done to revitalize sales, the company will lead to the inevitable downsizing. What to do?

They already knew this earlier than 2006-2007.

According to "Wizards Presents: Classes and Races" on page 8,

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Presents-Classes-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786948019"]Amazon.com: Wizards Presents: Classes and Races (Dungeons & Dragons) (9780786948017): Michele Carter: Books[/ame]


they were already designing 4E D&D back in June 2005.

Pages 8 and 9 in "Wizards Presents: Classes and Races" chronologically outlines the design and development of 4E over 2005 -> 2007.

 

[ggroy]

You can have one base game and many flavors (Simpson's monopoly, Misssissippi monopoly, etc.), but they stand on one rule set that isn't constantly being added too. This would be like putting out the base D&D rules and selling campaign worlds or adventures for the game.

They tried this already back in the 1990's, with the proliferation of settings during the 2E AD&D era.

Look where it got them in 1997. They're not likely to try it again.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re-invention is not neccessary, but it IS effective and easy enough to do, relatively speaking. However, its not the only path.

While it is fair to point out the stability of CoC (or HERO) as a counterpoint to reinvention, neither system is anywhere near the size or profitability of D&D. There is a real risk that without some kind of rejuvenation of its IP, D&D- or more accurately, WotC- could stagnate or even diminish.

I could easily see a version of D&D in which spells known by a given PC depends upon purchases of collectible booster packs. About 10 years before M:tG, this was used for Nova Games' Lost World character, Fighter-Mage with Magic Sword.

I could also see a game substantially like what we see with 3.5Ed or 4Ed, with a set of Core books and expansions, where the core books (the ones that are the most constant sellers) are revised every 5-10 years to consolidate errata or rules changes, but the system remains fundamentally unchanged. And in order to get boosts in revenue or maintain a certain level of income flow, the game company would then release adventures (a mixed bag, saleswise) or possibly other RPGs. Those other RPGs would perforce be significantly different from the original or other games in the company's stable, in order to stave off market cannibalization.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC- given its size- couldn't have launched 4Ed as a FRPG independent of the D&D imprint and done just fine with it and 3.5 on the same shelves. Its a business model that works for most of the CRPG companies, after all. Not only would 3.5Ed still be fully supported, 4ED (whatever its other name would be) would have been freed of any legacy issues- the designers would have been working with a blank slate...and IMHO, might have been even better for it.

(Hell, WotC could have resurrected Everway and Primal Order.)

And that's just a couple of ideas off the cuff. I'm sure with more time and other minds brainstorming, other business models could pop up.

But my gut feeling is that most of them would be riskier than simple system reboots.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They tried this already back in the 1990's, with the proliferation of settings during the 2E AD&D era.

Look where it got them in 1997. They're not likely to try it again.

I think that had more to do with quality control, setting support, and an overly ambitious release schedule rather than the actual number of settings.

Heck, several of those settings were just subsets of FR, anyway.

 

[ggroy]

I think that had more to do with quality control, setting support, and an overly ambitious release schedule rather than the actual number of settings.

Heck, several of those settings were just subsets of FR, anyway.

Indeed.

- Forgotten Realms, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures
- Mystara, Red Steel, Hollow World, Savage Coast

- Greyhawk
- Dragonlance
- Birthright
- Ravenloft
- Spelljammer
- Planescape
- Jakandor
- Lankhmar

Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Indeed.

- Forgotten Realms, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures

You forgot Maztica.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yet another option, as Beginning of the End stated, would be to take the Magic of Incarnum approach, or even books like Weapons of Legacy or The Book of Nine Swords. This would put the emphasis on quality over quantity, on new ways of playing the same basic game, rather than just piling on more and more options - feats, builds, monsters, etc.

And I think this is why WotC went ahead and created 4E... because they screwed themselves longterm by creating the OGL for 3E.

You know why WotC didn't release more products like Weapons of Legacy, or The Book of Nine Swords and whatnot? Because the other 3rd Party companies already did it. There was nothing left to create... at least nothing left that would actually generate a continuous stream of revenue. The 3PPs cannibalized the possibilities WotC had for 3E products. What if WotC maybe wanted to put out a superhero game using the d20 engine? No point... Silver Age Sentinels and Mutants & Masterminds already did it. And you can go down the list of other things WotC might've been able to do... had they not opened it up so other companies could do them first.

However... now that they've fixed the problem and created a whole new game with new game engine that isn't open to be used by everybody else... they now have the possibilities to create product all to themselves. And we're seeing them use it to create offshoots of 4E like the Castle Ravenloft boardgame and Gamma World. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to eventually see a 4E Modern rpg... a 4E Superheroes rpg... a 4E space rpg and/or board game etc. etc.

This is why 4E was an important step for them... because they got back what was rightfully theirs. 3E and the OGL was a godsend at the time because it finally got D&D back on solid footing as a legitimate game and legitimate brand after being crushed under the weight of TSRs mismanagement... but eventually the proliferation of 3PP just made it impossible for WotC to create anything that hadn't already been done in d20 many times before. But now that D&D had regained a bit of its swagger back (both in the eyes of the industry and the general public), they could bring it back under their own umbrella once more and be the sole proprietors of the D&D mechanics and brand using 4E.

 

[Umbran]

Re-invention is not neccessary...

Necessary... for what? Before we can say if it is necessary, we need to be clear about the goal. What we think is a reasonable goal may not make business sense for a company WotC's size.