D&D 5E "The next iteration of D&D is a game on its own"

[Aldarc]

I'm surprised this portion of the interview has not been mentioned:

Mearls: We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy. It would be great if the playtest feedback was such that we felt comfortable dropping any reference to editions or numbers in the final game’s title.

I get the feeling here that WotC is taking lessons from Paizo and the idea of developing a long-term product strategy.

 

[foolish_mortals]

I'm surprised this portion of the interview has not been mentioned:
I get the feeling here that WotC is taking lessons from Paizo and the idea of developing a long-term product strategy.

I like this merble statement. Maybe things won't be so weird this time around.

foolish_mortals

 

[blalien]

I get the feeling here that WotC is taking lessons from Paizo and the idea of developing a long-term product strategy.

It sounds like Wizards learned their lesson that incrementally changing the system every few years is not sustainable. Of course, option bloat requires that a new edition will be released eventually. I would be satisfied if this edition lasts around ten years.

 

[foolish_mortals]

it would be best if they had a solid system for the rest of Dnds life. That's the best route at this option. The never ending stream of editions just ends up shrinking the dnd base. If they feel the need to make a new game, then do it but don't suddenly brand it dnd to help its sales. We all would have been better off they called 4th something else like Power Warriors. Then there wouldn't be this perceived schism in the community. All hope lies with Money Cookie at this point.

I don't know what that means...
foolish_mortals

 

[gloomhound]

You know the more I hear about this new D&D (not that we have heard a lot yet) the more I like it.

Is it just me but I do seem to keep catching a whiff of Basic + AD&D in theses articles?

 

[DEFCON 1]

It sounds like Wizards learned their lesson that incrementally changing the system every few years is not sustainable. Of course, option bloat requires that a new edition will be released eventually. I would be satisfied if this edition lasts around ten years.

Either that, or they learned that the subscription model for DDI was more successful at generating consistent revenue than printing and selling books were. So that so long as there was enough product released through DDI to keep subscribers coming back month after month (thus cutting down the need to publish new books every month), they could slow production down in the future yet still maintain a monthly revenue stream.

 

[Aenghus]

One thing is clear. The new edition will initially be much simpler in its core than 3e or 4e. It probably won't be possible to do a direct translation of many old characters to the new edition, at least till more modules come out.

Now, I expect similar PCs can be achieved for the concepts that fall closest to whatever core classes are decided on for 4e.

And it's unfair to expect a new edition with very little content to be as flexible as any fully mature edition with all it's supplements.

Though this is what tends to happen with any new edition. There are some who find that things have changed and favourite PCs of theirs are difficult to translate immediately.

After over 3 years of 4e products, it' s possible to translate most character concepts from previous editions to 4e. The translation will often look very different if it is to provide the functionality specified.This wasn't true at launch.

 

[Saint&Sinner]

Is it just me but I do seem to keep catching a whiff of Basic + AD&D in theses articles?

That's the way I'm seeing it. That would make me very, very happy. I haven't run D&D since around 1984-85 and I would love a tight easy system to run for my kids.

 

[Azgulor]

Either that, or they learned that the subscription model for DDI was more successful at generating consistent revenue than printing and selling books were. So that so long as there was enough product released through DDI to keep subscribers coming back month after month (thus cutting down the need to publish new books every month), they could slow production down in the future yet still maintain a monthly revenue stream.

We've been hearing about the revenue stream (with little actual data to sustantiate it) of DDI since its launch. While I'm sure it's a pillar of the 5e strategy, DDI clearly isn't enough. At least, not enough to push D&D into the "Core Brand" designation of Hasbro/WotC. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing a 5e this soon.

 

[enrious]

It's clearly a substantial pillar of revenue, much as Paizo's own subscription service is. As you say, however, we don't know the verifiable numbers and thus our speculation is thus, although not completely blind.

 

[Knightfall]

My favorite parts of the interview...

I’m hoping you could shed some light on what fundamental concepts remain key to the new edition. In other words, what elements of the existing D&D game are absolutely essential to bring into a new edition, whether in terms of game systems, storytelling, or atmosphere?

We actually went back and played every major edition of D&D and used those experiences to help narrow down the absolute core elements of the game. If you removed those elements, it’s not D&D. Our list includes the six abilities, classes, levels, hit points, Armor Class, and a few other things. In many ways, the list creates the shared language that links the editions.

Of course, the most important element of D&D is the DM. We found that across all the editions, the DM was more important than the specific rules. Supporting DMs and giving them the tools to create the campaigns they want is an important goal for the project.

I really like the fact they went back and played the older editions. That tells me they are serious about making D&D Next an edition that all D&D fans will be interested in taking a look at.

Also, the list of core elements is very... telling.

Can a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons succeed without a more open approach to licensing, like we saw with the OGL of 3rd edition?

I think that an open license speaks to how people think about D&D, and in some ways it is a big part of the game’s culture. We want people to feel like we’re making an effort to include everything that they love about the game, and we’re exploring options for third party publishers.

While I don't think we'll get as open a license as the first OGL, I think this statement means the D&D community will get a much better licensing option than the GSL. An OGL-Lite that allows 3PP to create adventures, sourcebooks, and settings but not alternate rulebooks, perhaps?

Still too early to know for sure.

We’ve heard that Forgotten Realms will be a supported setting from the start of the new edition? Is this correct? Are new and alternative game settings still a central part of the D&D strategy as the game moves forward into a new edition?

Just as fans like different mechanics and styles of play, so too do they like lots of settings. We’re making plans to ensure that your setting of choice is incorporated into our plans, but right now it’s too early to go into specifics.

As a huge fan of the older TSR settings, I am very happy to see that the design team is concerned with creating a new D&D game that can be molded for use with the classic D&D Worlds.

It's also likely to be a huge boon for homebrewers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We've been hearing about the revenue stream (with little actual data to sustantiate it) of DDI since its launch. While I'm sure it's a pillar of the 5e strategy, DDI clearly isn't enough. At least, not enough to push D&D into the "Core Brand" designation of Hasbro/WotC. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing a 5e this soon.

Well, I do not think there's a chance in heck of it ever becoming a "core brand" of Hasbro, regardless of what edition they're on. WotC got bought because of Pokemon and Magic. D&D was just along for the ride.

 

[Gundark]

I hadn't realised that this was ever in doubt!

There seemed to be some that thought otherwise