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.