The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Derren]

The "future" article will likely be rather controversal.

Considering that the Escapist is primarily a video game site I will keep my prediction to the less dangerous topic of the D&D brand in video games. And here the future doesn't look bright at all.

The D&D brand so far had two "peaks" concerning video games. The first peak were the Gold Box games from SSI (Past) and Baldurs Gate (including spinoffs)/Neverwinter Nights (semi - present).
But D&D as a brand name has been damaged a lot as far as Video games are concerned.

First there was no new game for quite some time (Thanks to the Atari lawsuit) and the one game that did came out was very bad. In the meantime other fantasy universes did come out which overshadowed the D&D brand (Dragon Age). The split of the player base didn't make the D&D name more valuable either.
There is one D&D game in the works, but it is an MMO from Cryptic and when you at least have a little knowledge about MMOs than you know that Cryptic sucks at making them. They usually buy well known licenses they can get for cheap, make a cheap MMO which they finance through lifetime accounts and the instant it is released they drop it and look for a new license.
And even if it is surprisingly good it will still be only a small light compared to the big MMOs.

It will likely take another 10 years before D&D becomes prominent again as far as Video games are concerned. The market seem to shift away from Fantasy again towards Sci-Fi anyway.

 

[DaveMage]

I think the article excellently shows the dysfunction within WotC - which apparently continues to this day (layoffs, lack of strong direction for the brand).

 

[William Ronald]

I think the article excellently shows the dysfunction within WotC - which apparently continues to this day (layoffs, lack of strong direction for the brand).

I am not happy with the state of WotC, but I think that this article also shows the deep division among players of table top role playing games. In some ways, I think that we benefit from having a variety of games to generate ideas and meet the different interests and styles of gamers.

Personally, I doubt that any new edition could unify a fragmented base. I would like to see good products come out of WotC, as it is good for the industry. Tastes can be subjective, so I am not sure how a new edition might be received.

What is truly remarkable is how our hobby has grown and changed in the last 40 years or so. When TSR was in trouble, I feared that D&D might be history. However, I am confident that our hobby will continue in one form or another. It is up to us to keep gaming alive as a hobby. Between introductory products, organized play, and individuals I know who dedicate their time and talent to our hobby, I think that we will see the grandkids of today's gamers likely playing some form of RPG.

 

[Rechan]

The article also shows exactly what this thread shows: You can't have any sort of discussion about D&D without people fighting over editions, what they mean and who they targeted. It accurately states the harsh divisiveness.

 

[William Ronald]

The article also shows exactly what this thread shows: You can't have any sort of discussion about D&D without people fighting over editions and what they mean and who they targeted. It accurately states the harsh divisiveness.

We are divided, but we can try to be civil. It is not easy, but let's remember that we are ALL members of a relatively small and often misunderstood hobby. This is why fighting with each other seems silly to me.

 

[Umbran]

Morrus, we were getting some complaints on the Facebook url for those articles. I've edited in direct links to the Escapist. I hope that's okay.

 

[3catcircus]

The thing I find most interesting about those two articles is that (whether you agree with it being intentional or not) the author makes it pretty clear that Andy Collins is the reason why 4e is what it is and why it is so reviled by those folks who have stuck with 3.x or Pathfinder.

 

[Dragonhelm]

What is difficult for me, as a 4e fan, is the shadow of negativity surrounding it.

For example, I think that Klaus nailed it on the head about the marketing blunders surrounding 4e's release. The GSL and the recalling of properties was bad. Then the end of PDF sales of prior editions' materials was bad as well. I know that came around a year later, but still.

I think the Escapist article shows a certain amount of bias as well. While it's hard to not have any bias in a news story, they seemed to have forgotten one key ingredient in news - getting both points of view. Notice how the article does not reference anyone currently with WotC. Now, perhaps WotC declined to comment. If so, then the Escapist should make a note of that in the article.

I also do not fall into these broad demographics. I have played D&D since 2nd edition, and yet I gravitate towards 4e. I should be clear that I am a fan of D&D in every edition, including a few "clones" such as Pathfinder and C&C. However, my focus these days is on 4e.

While I think 4e is a great version of D&D, a very progressive one at that, the merits of the game will be overshadowed by the negativity in the RPG community surrounding WotC. It's hard to like a game when all this negativity surrounds it.

My prediction (and just that) is that Monte Cook was hired to "fix" D&D by creating 5e. His name will lend a certain credence. Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have the impossible task of bringing back fans of every D&D edition. I don't see that happening. Maybe if WotC does a new OGL and sells PDFs of prior editions' materials.

I could see the PDFs being sold. But the OGL? No way. Oh, maybe we'll get another license, and hopefully one better than the GSL. But I seriously doubt we'll ever see anything like the OGL again.

Now, to be fair, it doesn't wholly make sense from a business standpoint for WotC to give away their IP. Still, the right phrasing in such a license should be able to boost sales. If done right.

See, this is why I should stop reading RPG news. It just makes me depressed. I should be enjoying the game, not worrying about the state of WotC, or the RPG industry.

Sorry, folks, just rambling.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

The thing I find most interesting about those two articles is that (whether you agree with it being intentional or not) the author makes it pretty clear that Andy Collins is the reason why 4e is what it is and why it is so reviled by those folks who have stuck with 3.x or Pathfinder.

Which is funny, because by all accounts I've heard up til this point it was Robert Heinsoo who was the mastermind behind most of what made 4th edition work. Huh.

I can't remeber writing something about you specifically.

But be it as it may, nothing you said changes the fact that 4e was designed with specific goals in mind. And I have already quoted Andy Collins on what those goals are. Nothing more to say, really.[ /QUOTE]

Except that lower attention span is a nice way of saying stupid and immature. Also accusing someone else of being in denial over personal experiences?

Maybe it was also the fact that I'm doing a 4th edition campaign that hasn't entered a single dungeon yet, and is awesome and has some really interesting and dark themes with actual story, I dunno. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Andy Collins was one of many people, and his design goals aren't the only ones that went into 4th edition.

Or maybe it's because your post smacked of so much condescension that I could taste it. That last point was probably what started it. If the mods tell me to back off, so be it, but understand that generalization is going to make people who know better more than a bit offended. People who have no issue on calling you out on something that's not nearly as black and white as this article puts it.

And, to be honest, I wasn't commenting on just you when I called this an "ordeal". The whole article was rather one-sided, at best. I found reading it an ordeal, and that's more of what I was commenting on. But your comment counted, too.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I found the articles interesting; and a decent introduction for anyone not familiar with the issues. I certainly didn't see a lot of bias against any of the games or the gaming companies; it seemed to me like the writer was very diplomatic towards all versions of the game.

I think it rather nicely ties in the perspectives of individual players of the game and that of the business side.

It does perpetuate (as others have noted) the somewhat problematic generalizations about player subgroups, as if there were one group of teenage MMO players and one group of old-timers. There are divides in the community, but age and other gaming experience are not the most important ones.

That said, i'll check back for "Future".