RPG Evolution: The Half-Edition Shuffle

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

The next edition of Dungeons & Dragons is finally on the horizon, but it's not here just yet. So when do publishers makes the shift?

thehalfeditionshuffle.png

A Historical Model​

D&D has been through several editions in recent memory, but few match the recent transition between two compatible editions. Although backwards compatibility is often promised, it's rarely delivered. And there's also the consideration of the thousands of small press publishers created through the Open Game License movement, which didn't exist before Third Edition. Of all the edition shifts, the 3.0 to 3.5 transition seems closest to what D&D is going through right now, so it's a good place to start this thought experiment.

Compatible, Sort Of​

Fifth Edition's transition to Sixth involves tweaks to the game. Those tweaks seemed largely cosmetic, at first. With the release of Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, it's clear that the spellcasting section of monsters is going to be significantly changed. In short, while players may find their characters compatible with the latest edition of D&D, DMs may find their monsters aren't. And that's a problem for publishers. But mechanically, all of these issues can be addressed. What really matters is what customers think. And that's often shaped by branding.

What a Half-Edition Means​

The transition between Third Edition and 3.5 was more significant than many publishers were expecting. You can see a list on RPG Stack Exchange, which shows just how much the new edition changed the game.

This did not go unnoticed by consumers. The OGL movement was still developing but it caught many publishers by surprise, including the company I wrote for at the time, Monkeygod Publishing (they're no longer in business). When we released my hardcover book Frost & Fur, the only identifier was the D20 System logo. Little did we know that it was imperative to identify the book as 3.5-compatible (which it was), because stores wouldn't carry it and consumers wouldn't buy it if it wasn't.

There wasn't nearly as much communication from WIzards of the Coast back then as to how to prepare for the edition change, much less columns from the company explaining their strategy. More communication about the upcoming edition may mitigate its impact on third-party publishers.

Between the DM's Guild and DriveThruRPG, there is now an ecosystem that can more readily update itself without taking up shelf space or clogging up inventory. Digital products can be changed, covers can be rebranded, and newsletters can announce the update. Wizards of the Coast has also given considerable lead time on the coming changes by announcing the edition well in advance and updating books piecemeal so developers can see what changed. But there's still one important piece of the puzzle.

What Do Consumers Think?​

One of the ongoing concerns for supporting publishers of Third Edition was how the Open Game License would be updated and, at least as important, how to identify that compatibility.

Updating the OGL enables publishers to ensure their products are compatible. The OGL doesn't specify stat block structure, so it may not even be necessary to update the license much if at all.

Identifying compatibility will be even more critical. At some point, publishers will start identifying their products as Sixth Edition compatible. And that will happen when consumers shift their spending habits.

The Changeover​

But first, WOTC has to declare that Sixth Edition has officially arrived. Wizards was hesitant to put a number on Fifth Edition, preferring instead to indicate it was simply D&D to potentially head off edition controversy. Failure to do that in a timely fashion (or worse, failure to recognize a new edition at all and continue calling it Fifth Edition) will cause potential confusion in the marketplace, with both consumers and publishers.

At some point the tide will turn and consumers will expect compatibility with the new edition. That change is complicated by the fact that Sixth Edition should be largely compatible with Fifth Edition. But only consumers can decide that for sure; if they don't feel it is, there will be a sharp drop off in Fifth Edition buying habits. For smaller publishers, they'll stay close to the market to determine when that shift is happening and how to transition smoothly without harming their business model.

Getting it right can be lucrative. Getting it wrong can sink a company. The market convulsed massively when 3.5 came out, wiping out publishers and game store stock that were unprepared for the change. Here's hoping with enough foresight and planning, we don't have a repeat of the 3.0 transition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

HammerMan

Legend
PF2 issue was that it was in a no win situation.
not a pathfinder fan, but I will say I feel for them. 3.5 was already too bloated, and they made there name with "it's 3.5+" with some spakle over the ugliest parts. They did best when they made new classes (magus and alchemist I'm looking at you). However they needed to update sooner or later, and when they did they would lose the 1 claim they had to fame... "it's 3.5 still" so I don't know if they had a good answer.

the only time they made #1 was when WotC stopped putting out books... it's like the second best runner claiming to have one the day the 1st best runner didn't come to the race... they never had it to challange D&D for any real time, and as D&D is growing it is growing away from PF...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ctorus

Explorer
If they reigned in all the temporary modifiers a lot of the powers added, that would have helped as well there were far to many to keep track of.
They started to do this with Essentials but the 'not-my-D&D' mob just got even more vocal. I could certainly see a stripped down version of 4e, with the same game engine but less bloat (i.e. not like 13th Age, which threw out too much), being an amazing game. But that alas is a road they chose not to go down.
 

HammerMan

Legend
They started to do this with Essentials but the 'not-my-D&D' mob just got even more vocal. I could certainly see a stripped down version of 4e, with the same game engine but less bloat (i.e. not like 13th Age, which threw out too much), being an amazing game. But that alas is a road they chose not to go down.
i would do anything for WotC to take the ideas and working parts of 4e, merge in some ideas (smaller number, HD over HS, advantage/disadvantage and even some of the spell casting like concentration) and make the math work with things like skill challanges (hey look strixhaven looks like a start) that would be great for a 50th anniversary
 


Jer

Legend
Supporter
They started to do this with Essentials but the 'not-my-D&D' mob just got even more vocal. I could certainly see a stripped down version of 4e, with the same game engine but less bloat (i.e. not like 13th Age, which threw out too much), being an amazing game. But that alas is a road they chose not to go down.
They did do that - it's called 5e. They just threw out even more than 13th age did. If they'd included a more tactical engine for the game the similarities would be more obvious but the core game for 5e has a lot more in common with the core of 4e than of any other edition prior to it. The presentation of 5e is much more like 3e - had they released 4e with a presentation format more like 5e it probably would have had less pushback (the math on the first MM and the GSL likely would have still killed a lot of interest IMO tho).

ducks and runs for cover
 

They did do that - it's called 5e. They just threw out even more than 13th age did. If they'd included a more tactical engine for the game the similarities would be more obvious but the core game for 5e has a lot more in common with the core of 4e than of any other edition prior to it. The presentation of 5e is much more like 3e - had they released 4e with a presentation format more like 5e it probably would have had less pushback (the math on the first MM and the GSL likely would have still killed a lot of interest IMO tho).

ducks and runs for cover

Psst.... or word gets spread around.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
They started to do this with Essentials but the 'not-my-D&D' mob just got even more vocal. I could certainly see a stripped down version of 4e, with the same game engine but less bloat (i.e. not like 13th Age, which threw out too much), being an amazing game. But that alas is a road they chose not to go down.
At the time I really liked 4e. At the time I was not a fan of the direction they took it with essentials.

IMO, Wotc lost many 4e fans in that move and never really converted any of the crowd that disliked 4e with it.

So I’m not sure you can blame those not liking 4e as the most vocal against the essentials changes.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
They did do that - it's called 5e. They just threw out even more than 13th age did. If they'd included a more tactical engine for the game the similarities would be more obvious but the core game for 5e has a lot more in common with the core of 4e than of any other edition prior to it. The presentation of 5e is much more like 3e - had they released 4e with a presentation format more like 5e it probably would have had less pushback (the math on the first MM and the GSL likely would have still killed a lot of interest IMO tho).

ducks and runs for cover
Maybe to some degree it’s in the eye of the beholder IMO.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top