D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Bluenose]

No, but people were talking about it. A lot. There was a lot of data available, and I saw the questionnaires as more of an attempt to get discussion started, hence the vagueness. I mean, for WotC not to pick up on it, they'd have to be avoiding not just EnWorld, but their own forums, and we know that they read both.

I am unsure. Remember the podcast (? Vidcast? Whatever it was) where the party very nearly had a TPK against a party of ghouls? The Slavelords adventure, I think. That saving throws were really hard to make was something that was being discussed a lot, yet it seemed to come as a big surprise to both the players and the GM. It doesn't convince me that much attention was being paid to discussion on message boards, or maybe that the discussion wasn't being passed on in a form that made it apparent.

No one (atleast from Wizards) saying that this time around. So I really don't think that there will be such passionate edition wars this time around. Heck, I'm hopeful that any edition wars will be more like edition skirmishes instead.

"He didn't shout his hand back on." Mike Mearls discussing William Wallace, some Irish guy, and martial healing/restoration of hit points.

"It also didn't get slept back on." Me, responding.

If you have the feeling that no-one from WotC is saying anything that 4e players could possibly be offended by, that's Exhibit A for you to consider.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The following are the main reasons I think D&DN is going to be in trouble.

1. Lack of online excitement/hype 6 months out from release. Ok some people are looking forward to it of course but I am comparing it to the launch of 3rd and 4th ed here. Apathy or hatred also seems to be a common online opinion expressed across numerous forums.

I'm still looking forward to it. I remember the 3E hate being after the launch of 3E. Beforehands, I remember mostly positive stuff because they were bringing D&D back from the abyss of the mid to late 90s where TSR almost went out of business. The same with 4E.

2. A fragmented player base. 4E sold well on launch at least and that was based on the strength of the D&D brand and the good will 3rd ed had built up I suppose along with the desire for something new. Conditions are very different heading into 2014 compared to 2008. Ten years ago if you asked someone what D&D they were playing 90%+ it was 3rd ed and in effect the player base was unified. Now you have to ask what edition they play and it could be 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, D&DN or one of 20+ clones.

Pathfinder was already producing 3.5e compatible products, including their popular Adventure Paths, when 4E came out. Plus, it was well publicized that they were going to be putting out D&D 3.75.

3. Paizo. Lisa, Eric and an alumni of ex WoTC/TSR era staffers have done well with Pathfinder. We know PF outsold 4E by 2011 at the latest (2010 by some reports) and that they were getting 12.4 million a year in 2012 with 30% growth rate. If they keep that up they will be coming close to 20 million a year in 2014 and in an average year D&D is worth about 25-30 million according to Ryan Dancey. DDI still make around 6 million a year so most of the gaming dollars from 3.5 era D&D is accounted for between PF and DDI. Paizo is producing a similar amount of content as the old TSR.

I like Pathfinder as a game, but I don't think a 30% yearly growth rate is realistic.

4. Attack of the Clones. Since 2008 there has been an OSR revival. There is no OSR Pathfinder as people are playing around 20+ clones and retro games but the major ones seem to be Dungeon Crawl Classics and Castles and Crusades. Gygax magazine under a new TSR has been launched as well and it out sold Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle on rpgnow.com. The big selling PDFs on D&Dclassics.com are all TSR era adventures. It is hard to say how big the OSR community is but they are producing more content than Paizo and someone is buying the adventures.

OSR? Open System...? And, RPG Now is hardly the be all to end all of sales of RPGs, is it?

5. Lack of big name designers. A popular designers name will sell copies of an RPG. Gygax back in the day, Monte Cook and Numenera these days. D&DN lacks a big name like Gygax, Mentzer, Cook (either one) who have designed a popular edition of D&D. Mearls seems a nice guy but 4E was not his baby and his 4E work by most accounts was lack lustre. Keep on the Shadowfell seems to be infamous for being bad.

I've been gaming since the late 70s and couldn't tell you who designed 3E, 3.5E, 4E or Pathfinder. And, to me, 1e/2e is Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood for the Forgotten Realms. I know some other names involved, but couldn't tell you if they were designers, or something else.

6. D&DN lacks a clear focus and target audience. D&D for everyone seems to be a dubious design goal. Ditching the goals of 4E seems to be a good way to annoy your current audience (see 2008 for how that goes down) and it retains to many 4Eisms to appeal to a vast majority IMHO of the OSR and 3.x crowds. Damage on a miss, reskinned 4E daily powers as spells, all classes having the same attack proficiency probably will not appeal to those who like OSR or 3.x. One could argue about real vancian magic etc but if you are playing OSR or 3.x obviously it is not a deal breaker for you.

How many 4E players are wedded to the system? That's the key. I think most of the people I know that play 4E are not in love with the system. But, that is just anecdotal.

7. A new generation of neo grognards are born. The original grognards are starting to play new clones like DCC, Castles and Crusades, ACKs etc even though they use modern mechanics and the neo grognards who rejected 4E have Pathfinder and the OGL to keep them happy. An unknown amount of 4E players will reject D&DN out right and while it helps having new product come out the original grognards went without official support for almost 2 decades. More than a few 4E posters have been vocal in their dislike for D&DN so if D&DN doesn't appeal to 3rd or 4th ed players in large numbers it is doomed.

bah - go back to old Dragon magazines and look at letters to the editor whining about 2E coming out. People are always complaining, and the internet gives them even more room to do it.

8. Forum numbers on wizards.com forums are way down it seems. The 4E forums are very quiet, the FR forums are almost a ghost town. Kind of related to a lack of internet buzz I suppose but forum activity does over lap with how well a D&D edition is received. See the online hatred directed it 4E and how it over flowed into real life. You do not need a majority of gamers on your forums but it probably helps to have an active and vocal community dedicated to your game. In 3rd ed we used to have FR authors posting on the WoTC forums which had a dedicated novels section.

Other than a few fairly well received Next adventures, they haven't put out much product in well over a year now, so traffic naturally decreases. I don't recall that big a gap between 3.5e and 4e, though, so that probably plays a part.

9. Loaded and leading survey questions. A lot of the survey questions were not really designed to get genuine feedback and they avoided some important questions all together IMHO. Several things were presented as fiat accomplice. The 2nd packet (the one with the Sorcerer and Warlock) seemed to be the most popular one on the WoTC forums and they are making some rather large assumptions about bounded accuracy for example and D&DN monsters suck due to BA. The warlord class is supposed to be a fighter subclass now, perhaps they should have asked should the class exist as a full class. Even New Coke tested well and that turned out to be a disaster for coke, although the reintroduction of classic coke was a PR win.

No idea on this, as I barely looked at the playtest surveys.

10. Lack of focus in the play test packets. Put bluntly the play test was all over the place. Leaves the impression it was really a PR stunt. Compared to the Pathfinder playtest you had a good idea what you were getting. Monster math was borked, I have doubts about some of the other concepts such as saves as well. With the numbers being wonky in both 3.0 and 4E and everything WoTC has done when they have started from scratch I have severe doubts about D&DN before it is even released. Might just wait for the inevitable .5 or essentials math fix to make the game semi playable.

I agree on this last piece, as the few packets I did get were a jumble of PDF files. I much preferred it when I picked up the softcover version of Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and had the rules in one nice book and nicely formatted. Made it a lot easier for me. But, I'm an old crabby guy now, so all these PDF files and tablets can get offa my lawn.

So, I think it still remains to be seen.

 

[Bluenose]

OSR? Open System...? And, RPG Now is hardly the be all to end all of sales of RPGs, is it?

Old School Renaissance. The movement that's putting out a bunch of games that hark back to TSR editions of D&D. There's an attached philosophy that some ascribe to about how RPGs are supposed to be. Though given some of the things it espouses, it's quite clearly based on the idea that D&D is the only game that exists - I don't find that philosophy as commonly expressed matches well with many of the other RPGs produced in the 1970s and 1980s.

Edit: According to several blogs by game designers, they get more sales on PDF than they do on printed books. And the ratio is increasing. Some may be through the company's own websites, but One Book Shelf apparently make it easier than doing the work yourself (if less profitable, they do take a cut).

I've been gaming since the late 70s and couldn't tell you who designed 3E, 3.5E, 4E or Pathfinder. And, to me, 1e/2e is Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood for the Forgotten Realms. I know some other names involved, but couldn't tell you if they were designers, or something else.

I can name several from games I like, Steve Perrin and Marc Miller for example, but recent D&D doesn't make me care enough to "follow" it's designers other games with much interest - Rodney Thompson is perhaps the only exception, and that's due to SW Saga rather than anything else.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I think an edition war would be a step up from what we have now, since that at least would show some passion.

I started with 2e and eagerly went with every edition change since; I playtested D&DN since the very first "family & friends" version. After all that, "apathy" is probably a pretty good description of my thoughts on D&DN.

I don't hate the version; there's actually a few things in there that I thought were quite nicely done, and that I'll probably steal when running something else. I wouldn't even have any problem playing a D&DN game if someone in my group really wanted to, but at the end of the day, there's just nothing there to get me excited, nothing that makes me want to play this instead of something else, and certainly nothing that makes me want to spend my money on the line.

D&D will never die. The name recognition alone will keep it alive, and there's always going to be new or returning players walking into game stores and conventions looking to play "D&D" regardless of what actual mechanics are behind that brand.

But, yeah, the signs aren't there that this is going to be the resounding success that WOTC was gambling on. Especially as they've essentially sacrificed better than a year's worth of product sales, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that WOTC could have made more money with a 4.5e than they will with D&DN.

I agree that the lack of passion for or against 5e is a big, big problem for WotC.

I think there are a lot of folks who are disappointed or just plain meh about the new edition. In earlier times they would have gone to the forums and 'edition warred' (or typed angry letters to Dragon magazine before that). But you know what they're doing now? They're shrugging their shoulders and going off to play the numerous, polished alternative systems that now exist. C&C, Pathfinder, FATE, Numenara, Dungeon World, 13th Age. The list goes on and on. We're in the midst of a golden age of indie RPGs.

I think that in 2014 we'll find out that slapping the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover of a game no longer guarantees success. Because more than ever, D&D is not the only game in town.

 

[Morrus]

I don't really get this thread. I'm not 100% sure DDN will be blockbuster, but the reasons given don't convince me.

• DDN is the most talked about RPG on the web by any reasonable statistically significant measure. Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but it shouldn't take the place of data. I recognise however, that folks are strident about their own anecdotal evidence as it appears to be the whole world to them, and that conversation exhausts me, so I'll leave it.
• Repeated mentions of lack of focus in DDN playtests/surveys. I don't really know what that means.
• Nobody knew who Monte Cook was just before 3E. Less than those who know who Mike Mearls is.
• OSR is awesome, and cool, but unfortunately it's about 3-5% of the market. It's not a sweeping revolution; it's a prominent niche. It's a shame it's not more.

I think the OP can be best translated to "the OSR folks I talk to don't like DDN". Which is fine; probably they don't. But it's important to realise there are other people.

 

[Pour]

@ Bluenose

It's not even offending me so much as calling into question what other justifications the design team is making to create what they want to create. Where's the trust? A small part of me is wondering if they glanced at the surveys, shrugged, and kept working on what they were doing before.

D&D Next -should be- a familiar, but extremely flexible, rule set. It should make practically no setting or playgroup assumptions in the basic game. All of that style and assumption should have come through an equation something like: the basic rules (solid math we'd all use) + modular refinement (aedu vs vancian, skills/feats or add tactical combat, decision how balanced or unbalanced, etc)+ setting (dawn war vs great wheel, FR vs ... err the other FR's, equipment, magic items, etc, etc, etc). Sacred cows and unholy bovines alike should be features to be chosen and applied, or disregarded. House rules for the win, except a host of them would be provided for you, already jiggered to fit nicely so you didn't have to worry about math or power concerns. And you could use settings right out of the book, or as 5e examples you could then use as a guide to convert whatever you wanted. Could have even bit charts in the DMG along the lines of, "This would be equipment or treasure for a sword n sorcery setting", or "use X mods to create a low-survival game", or "this would be about the damage a spell of this level would do".

But I think we're getting something far more concrete, and that will establish its own camp. I guess I have to pose the question, "Was D&D ever officially about flexibility and diversity of play, or did we, over the years, make it about that to fit us?"

 

[Morrus]

but One Book Shelf apparently make it easier than doing the work yourself (if less profitable, they do take a cut).

Yup, close to half your gross revenue before you deduct you costs.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I've been gaming since the late 70s and couldn't tell you who designed 3E, 3.5E, 4E or Pathfinder. And, to me, 1e/2e is Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood for the Forgotten Realms. I know some other names involved, but couldn't tell you if they were designers, or something else.

You've never looked at the names on the cover of the books you were buying?? I sure as heck know that Rob Heinsoo wrote the very excellent 4e Underdark book. Huh, I wonder what he's doing nowadays...

How many 4E players are wedded to the system? That's the key. I think most of the people I know that play 4E are not in love with the system. But, that is just anecdotal.

Anecdotally, I know lots of 4e players who have no interest in whatevertheheck 5e is doing. Also, I think you confuse "I have valid criticisms of the system that I play" with "I don't like this system." Just because 4e's grid-based tactical combat can be a little clunky and over-complicated doesn't mean that I don't want a good tactical combat system.

As I said in my last post, D&D players have more options outside of D&D than they probably ever have had before. There's no guarantee they are going to try the new edition if they're not enthusiastic about it now. In fact, they may well have already tried the playtest, for free, and moved on.

 

[willvr]

Hmmm.

Not going to say anything about the passion or lack there-of; but Dungeons and Dragons is still a major brand-name.

I have some friends who work at a gaming shop; combining board games and RPGs. FOr them, someone new to RP, still thinks "Dungeons and Dragons" or, occasionally lately, "Pathfinder", and that's usually because they've looked online and been told '4E isn't as good as 3E'.

Now maybe it's no longer enough to get the die-hard RPers. But that's not really what the brand name recognition is about. It still gets well over half, probably close to 75% of RP newbies.

Retro-clones aren't going to be getting new players, except in regards to "You see son, this is how -I- played when I was your age."

I have a friend who started off with 2E (playing anyway); moved on to 3E, 3.5, and 4th. He's now looking at DnD Next. He's frustrated with 4E and DnD Next not so much for the playtests, but because the group as a whole won't play it. I've returned to 2E as my preferred system; though I'll happily play 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Editions wars aren't good for anyone. They fragment the community more than it would be. People who feel that they were told "you're stupid for liking the older game" are less likely to try to return at a later point.

 

[fjw70]

I really don't pay too much attention to the game designers either. I hear and see the names but I have never bought a product based on whose name is on the cover.