D&D 5E So what exactly is Wizards working on?

[TarionzCousin]

What D&D needs most is a good dance move. Imagine if the world saw Mearls doing the disco finger-point move, or Crawford moonwalk: now that's good publicity!

 

[BryonD]

Here's what I think, and has the benefit of matching up with what Wizards is actually doing:
...snip...

Beyond that, they don't actually need active players of 5E, just having enjoyed playing D&D sometime in the past 40 years.

...

Yes. I agree.

I'm not sure it is a *good* plan. If people are playing other games and not playing D&D, then the value of D&D as a brand name will erode. It won't vanish, but it will erode.

But we seem to agree that "active players" is not part of the plan. Let the chips fall where they will from there.


EDIT: I'm still holding out hope that another shoe will drop and WotC will start doing things to suggest they DO care about maintaining active players.

 

[Dire Bare]

Mearls said fastest. You said he was "being 100% real", which meant you were saying you thought he believed that 4e was the fasted version of D&D ever.

Ah, okay, gotcha. While not my pullout from what Mearls said, I agree with him that 4E was a faster playing game than previous editions. Not everyone cares about that, of course, but getting into play and having things resolved quicker is nice. Although, I suppose, "fastest" depends on what you are "timing". From my play experience, it felt like actions resolved faster and turns moved around the table faster, but combats actually lasted longer . . . although they were often set up very differently from combat encounters in previous editions.

And, more on point, I totally believe Mearls believed what he said, including the bit about 4E being the "fastest" D&D game up to that point. I'm not even sure why we're debating the honesty of what game designers say, it's such a small-minded thing to say (not Jester, just in general), "I think you're blowing smoke up our rumps! You really believed 4E sucked!! Even though you were a part of the design and development team making all the decisions! ADMIT IT!!!"

 

[Jester David]

Ah, okay, gotcha. While not my pullout from what Mearls said, I agree with him that 4E was a faster playing game than previous editions. Not everyone cares about that, of course, but getting into play and having things resolved quicker is nice. Although, I suppose, "fastest" depends on what you are "timing". From my play experience, it felt like actions resolved faster and turns moved around the table faster, but combats actually lasted longer . . . although they were often set up very differently from combat encounters in previous editions.

And, more on point, I totally believe Mearls believed what he said, including the bit about 4E being the "fastest" D&D game up to that point. I'm not even sure why we're debating the honesty of what game designers say, it's such a small-minded thing to say (not Jester, just in general), "I think you're blowing smoke up our rumps! You really believed 4E sucked!! Even though you were a part of the design and development team making all the decisions! ADMIT IT!!!"

I doubt they were lying. And 4e was much easier and faster to DM and prep for, so it's not remotely disingenuous. And individual turns certainly had the *potential* to be faster.

I'm not crying out "LIIIIIIES!" It's just amusing in hindsight. The funny thing to call out about the game as a talking point. And an odd thing to say when even rough testing of play would show combats were much slower overall.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Yes. I agree.

I'm not sure it is a *good* plan. If people are playing other games and not playing D&D, then the value of D&D as a brand name will erode. It won't vanish, but it will erode.

But we seem to agree that "active players" is not part of the plan. Let the chips fall where they will from there.


EDIT: I'm still holding out hope that another shoe will drop and WotC will start doing things to suggest they DO care about maintaining active players.

Looks like once again they are looking for that horde of untapped customers out there like they did with 4th edition.

 

[BryonD]

Looks like once again they are looking for that horde of untapped customers out there like they did with 4th edition.

It is a little different this time because last time they expected those people to play D&D. This time they just want them to go to the movies.
So not nearly as big of a fundamental error.

But I still think they will be surprised how poorly it works out.

Which isn't to say a 2017 blockbuster D&D movie can't happen. But 5E is neither here nor there to that. As many have pointed out, D&D has brand value already. Does 5E make it worth a little more or a little less in 2017? 2017 may be close to have any meaningful difference either way. Does 5E make it more recognized and attractive as a brand 7 years from now? The way they are going right now, I strongly doubt it.

As much as I respect the "TTRPG returns are not worth it" position, I think brand value ends up being a direct function of how many people played in the past decade. If the moving avg of fan base goes down, the recognition and value will follow. It is a slow process. But the end result is: yes, you are correct.

 

[Sailor Moon]

It is a little different this time because last time they expected those people to play D&D. This time they just want them to go to the movies.
So not nearly as big of a fundamental error.

But I still think they will be surprised how poorly it works out.

Which isn't to say a 2017 blockbuster D&D movie can't happen. But 5E is neither here nor there to that. As many have pointed out, D&D has brand value already. Does 5E make it worth a little more or a little less in 2017? 2017 may be close to have any meaningful difference either way. Does 5E make it more recognized and attractive as a brand 7 years from now? The way they are going right now, I strongly doubt it.

As much as I respect the "TTRPG returns are not worth it" position, I think brand value ends up being a direct function of how many people played in the past decade. If the moving avg of fan base goes down, the recognition and value will follow. It is a slow process. But the end result is: yes, you are correct.

Also, don't forget there wasn't a surge in comicbook sales after all these movies came out. I really hope they aren't expecting to people to go out and start buying the game if they watch a D&D movie.

 

[Umbran]

Which isn't to say a 2017 blockbuster D&D movie can't happen. But 5E is neither here nor there to that. As many have pointed out, D&D has brand value already. Does 5E make it worth a little more or a little less in 2017? 2017 may be close to have any meaningful difference either way. Does 5E make it more recognized and attractive as a brand 7 years from now? The way they are going right now, I strongly doubt it.

As much as I respect the "TTRPG returns are not worth it" position, I think brand value ends up being a direct function of how many people played in the past decade. If the moving avg of fan base goes down, the recognition and value will follow. It is a slow process. But the end result is: yes, you are correct.

With respect, I think you may be missing something fundamental that is key: The product plan with movies is probably astonishingly different from the product plan without movies.

They don't know how the movie thing is going to fall out yet. If they start down the road of a plan without movies, they will have to scrap that plan, at significant cost, customer annoyance, and delay. If they start down the road of a plan with movies, and the movie thing falls through, that whole line of plan just outright fails taking its investment with it.

They are in the position of not having enough solid information about major future situations to engage in major development plans. The failure of the electronic tool line probably also made an ugly dent in whatever plans they may have had, and restarting that may not be an option.

And yes, folks will say they should license electronic development (as if that went so well before!) - again, with the movie thing in the air, the value of those license deals is up in the air.

 

[BryonD]

With respect, I think you may be missing something fundamental that is key:

Oh, allow me to clearly state that I am absolutely missing that.
Your post is dead on.

But keep in mind that I've been responding to a lot of posts (in this thread and others) which presume the D&D movie is king of all and so I should not worry about the TTRPG releases because it is all about the movie.

I agree with you that they don't have nearly enough information. Which, of course, mean that they should not be rolling out D&D based on a movie they don't have nearly enough information regarding.

If we make the leap of faith that the movie is central to the plan, then my assessment is reasonable.

But if we don;t make that leap, and instead just stay with, oh lets call it "reality" for lack of a better label, then you are exactly right.
So they should have brand value on their mind, but the TTRPG should get more focus for maintaining that foundation. (or be dropped altogether as not worth it, this is a fair answer).
But in this "reality" thing D&D shouldn't hinge on a movie either way.

 

[Umbran]

But in this "reality" thing D&D shouldn't hinge on a movie either way.

In this "reality" there are any number of things we may think shouldn't be dependent on one another, but they are. "Reality" has a lot of twists in it that don't match what we want.

You probably just want a good game, with content to use with it. Not really an unreasonable desire. But, on the other side, they have other concerns. Sorry, but it is true. Just giving you a game and content is not sufficient on the business side. There is a looming opportunity cost to just giving you a game an content right now. You are asking them to just take the darned risk of that opportunity cost, and they are saying no, they don't want to take on that risk. Which may also not be unreasonable.

That is, if my thought on the movie is correct. I could be wrong.