D&D 5E What Wizards can do to make D&D Next successful.

[Stormonu]

You're asking for the game to stagnate. It may not always grow in your desired direction, but a game needs to grow to survive. Making D&D into a set of 3 books that never grow, never evolve, and never change is a good way to make D&D die 100x faster.

D&D clearly has many flavors, as you pointed out for Monopoly and Risk. However, where I think the designers fell down is they made the original version (what would be vanilla Monopoly/Risk) unavailable. It would be as if the only version of Monopoly available were Monoply City or for Risk they only made Risk Godstorm.

I applaud Wizards for rereleasing the old 1E, 3E and soon-to-be 2E rulesets. (Wonder if they'll do BECMI and Od&D?)

And while I don't expect, for example, for Windows to contiue to support Win 3.1, 95 or Win 98, I like the fact that not only can I get my hands on games like Diablo III, I can still load up and play something like Pac-man 'cuz someone's packaged it up for use with the latest OS's *.

To me, the best scenario would be where we could get a D&D game generic enough to work with the older editions, yet you can still add on to it. I wish they'd focus moreso on adventures than splatbooks, as splatbooks seem to drive the impetus for new editions that incorporate those "add-ons" into the core.

* Yes, I know Pac-man was an arcade game, but I used to have Revenge of Arcade back for Win95/98 - and besides, it's a great old game.

 

[Quickleaf]

I was out for pho the other day with some friends and I saw a little boy, maybe 6 or 7, on playing a game on an iPad while sitting in his mom's lap. Wow. It just struck me in that moment what the world of the next generation is going to be like. Every now and then I have moments like that...

Seems to me like a strong digital offering on two fronts (PDFs of old materials for the grognards and *something* for the newbies) is necessary for D&D 5e to be successful. Figuring out what that *something* is - that's the trick.

Oh, and they need to change the {#%! name! "D&D Next" makes me think of a soft drink commercial advertising a zero calorie drink.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Oh, and they need to change the {#%! name! "D&D Next" makes me think of a soft drink commercial advertising a zero calorie drink.

Yes, and we all know what happened to New Coke...

 

[ferratus]

...so....you're telling me that there are no variant, modern, or alternate editions or rule-sets for Monopoly or Risk?

Nope, you're right, nobody's every come up with a new or unique way to play Monoply.

Don't get sarcastic. Are all these variants using a different rules system? Are all these variants being marketed as being the replacement for traditional monopoly and discontinuing old versions? Does each variant support an entire product line in itself? Does Monopoly itself support an entire division at Hasbro? The answer to all of these questions is no.

Monoply is not one of the world's most popular boardgames on the grounds that there is only one version and one way to play the game.

No, it really isn't, because 9.5 times out 10 people buy monopoly or a version of monopoly that has renamed property spaces (ie. Baltic Ave is "Crime Alley" or Park Place is "Wayne Manor").

New, experimental versions of Monopoly are limited runs, designed to appeal to that hardcore element. If new versions of D&D were also that rare and limited, it wouldn't be nearly so devastating to splintering the fanbase.

D&D isn't a smartphone, but it could certainly stand to learn how to sell like one. Monopoly has, and it sure isn't hurting from it.

No, monopoly isn't. The core monopoly experience has changed very little from when it was introduced. Most importantly, there is no planned obsolescence, or a continued development and redesign.

Produce a core game concept, a defined framework of rules, and then run with it. Modules, apps, 3rd-party content, variant rules, all of the compatible with the core game, but each providing something unique and interesting to the system.

No, they should produce a core game concept and then run with it as it makes money. Does it pay for WotC to create modules rather than just having fans create modules? Should 3rd party publishers produce the splatbooks? The only thing WotC seems to make money on (at least enough money for Hasbro to bother with) is on the core rulebooks. Maybe that's all they should do, and license out the property to gain income or simply let an organized fan community (like the RPGA or something) handle accessory content.

The structuring at Hasbro is stupid. No argument there. Personally I think WOTC, and D&D's biggest current failing is simply their inability to get with the times. Modern distribution methods to reduce costs, core-game material subscription services, 3rd-party content. WOTC seems to absolutely abhor these concepts, and it's damaging their product.

Well, we can agree on that at least.

 

[ferratus]

I was out for pho the other day with some friends and I saw a little boy, maybe 6 or 7, on playing a game on an iPad while sitting in his mom's lap. Wow. It just struck me in that moment what the world of the next generation is going to be like. Every now and then I have moments like that...

Getting the D&D brand out on the digital medium is essential, with both video games and online D&D tools. To their credit, WotC/Hasbro recognizes this, they are just really, really bad at it.

 

[Sunseeker]

D&D clearly has many flavors, as you pointed out for Monopoly and Risk. However, where I think the designers fell down is they made the original version (what would be vanilla Monopoly/Risk) unavailable. It would be as if the only version of Monopoly available were Monoply City or for Risk they only made Risk Godstorm.

I applaud Wizards for rereleasing the old 1E, 3E and soon-to-be 2E rulesets. (Wonder if they'll do BECMI and Od&D?)

And while I don't expect, for example, for Windows to contiue to support Win 3.1, 95 or Win 98, I like the fact that not only can I get my hands on games like Diablo III, I can still load up and play something like Pac-man 'cuz someone's packaged it up for use with the latest OS's *.

To me, the best scenario would be where we could get a D&D game generic enough to work with the older editions, yet you can still add on to it. I wish they'd focus moreso on adventures than splatbooks, as splatbooks seem to drive the impetus for new editions that incorporate those "add-ons" into the core.

* Yes, I know Pac-man was an arcade game, but I used to have Revenge of Arcade back for Win95/98 - and besides, it's a great old game.

To an extent, the real subject we are all dancing around is copyright reform. If copyright law pushed products into the public domain more readily when the copyright owner stopped making the product, we would have more regular support for older products, or at least easier access.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Seems to me like a strong digital offering on two fronts (PDFs of old materials for the grognards and *something* for the newbies) is necessary for D&D 5e to be successful. Figuring out what that *something* is - that's the trick.

If the sum of the digital offering of the future DD5 are .pdf downloads through a plugin-enabled website, the digital offering will be a failure, failure, failure and heads will have to roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Are you serious about this, or is this your secret plan to sabotage Next?

Heh. No, I'm serious. Going Open Source made 3e - d20, really - as successful as it was. Trying to put the open-source genie back in the bottle was the major reason for the 'failure' of 4e - and the 'success' of Pathfinder. For 5e to succeed, it has to work with the open source model, not try to scuttle it. If 3pps can't hop on the 5e bandwagon with at least as sweet a deal as they got under the d20 OGL, they'll keep producing for d20, and that's direct competition.

 

[keterys]

Trying to put the open-source genie back in the bottle was the major reason for the 'failure' of 4e

I don't know that I'd point at that one thing.

I mean, if they'd killed open source, but still actually worked with 3rd parties, rather than against them? Or what if they didn't keep 4e so bottled up that industry veterans and insiders had no chance to give feedback? (Or even felt betrayed or _forced_ to work on other systems)

Shackling the entire initial offering to a single power model, turning off people who weren't fans of that singular model? Putting all their digital offerings in the hands of an unknown company that failed to deliver?

Heck, even something sorta out of their hands - all of the difficulties with the D&D video/computer game license that were only just now solved probably had a notable impact. I dunno about you, but D&D video games were a big source of getting people to try it back in the day and the version of the system that seems like it might work most easily with video games _didn't get one_.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know that I'd point at that one thing.

I think it's the key thing. Yes, there was nerdrage and vocal "h4ters," but without the 3pps being boxed into picking a 'side,' it would have been no different than the 2e/3e transition.

I mean, if they'd killed open source, but still actually worked with 3rd parties, rather than against them?

That's what they tried to do. Take the GSL and WotC'll work with you, but you have to give up the OGL. It didn't work. Replacing the OGL with a 'better' (more desireable from a 3pp standpoint, somehow) OGL might have worked.