D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Civil War Man]

Windows 7 bears a lot of similarities to Windows Vista. It's more refined and fixes a lot of the problems Vista has, but 7 is closer to Vista than either is to XP.

It is a smart marketing move to go to 5th ed instead of trying to refine 4th, because there is a large enough section of gamers who want absolutely nothing to do with 4th that there's no point in trying to convince them otherwise.

If you took 4th edition and refined it, you'd probably get a much better consumer response by releasing it as 5th edition than if you released it as 4.5, because of the negative association so many have with 4th edition.

[Knaight]

Honestly, I don't hate WoTC...and I really do hope that 5e is great. But yeah, I wouldn't be too upset if they lost a few bucks making legacy stuff available. I suspect as long as it's quite clearly marked as not the current edition(say, mail order only?), it won't hurt the newbies too much though.

I don't hate WotC. However, I do think that the current paradigm where we have one significant company and a bunch of tiny offshoots nobody has ever heard of is bad for the hobby, and would love to see WotC drop a bit, the vacuum get filled, and the market change to the point where those outside of it are even aware of games that are not D&D.

[Tiki Snakes]

Hmmm. I think that's the only real sentiment I can get behind.
If they're going to make 5th Ed, then it must not be one of the other editions with the serial numbers filed off.

Other than that I honestly don't know what they should be doing and I can only worry about what twisted monstrosity could be created if they do, infact, listen to the fans.

What little I do want is to be able to be a melee focused type, non-magically even, and be remotely relevant. Preferably, would have relevant choices and/or tactical decisions to consider whilst doing so.
It's not much to ask for, but it seems pretty rare in D&D history.

[Manateee]

Bring back 3.5! Bring back roleplaying! Bring back Dungeons and Dragons!!

-Ancient Mage

Seriously? 3e has more support than I know what to do with (esp. considering 3rd party contributions and homebrew), and PF is only adding more.

Also, it's cool that every edition involves less roleplay and less "D&D" than the one before it. So cool.

Actually, reading some of the blogs, it sounds like the basic idea behind 5e is going to be similar to what I was hoping for - a system of both modular rules and modular content designed for system-wide customization. If that design goal carries through to production, I might actually give it a shot.

[Tyndmyr]

Can't say I disagree. WoTC being on top is great for them, but the hobby does need to expand beyond them and be recognized as a genre instead of one game. Pathfinder is probably a step in the right direction for this...sure, you and I know it's basically D&D, but to less familiar folks, it's another popular line of books on the shelves at actual bookstores. Ditto for some of the 40k books, which appear to be doing surprisingly well, and are getting play in actual bookstores too.

[Fax Celestis]

Either give me a really good grasp of the monster-building process so I can do my own

...did you read the appendix of the Monster Manual?

[Othniel Edden]

I'd personally love a modular game where rules where packaged around the campaign settings. Here's a world where high level magic is dependent on geographic features and bartering with spirits. Here is a different one where the world is an island of order in a sea of chaos, and kingdoms constantly war with one another.

[Psyren]

Something ancient and visceral within me wants to see whatever they come up with grand PF into the dust, though. I have no idea why, I don't even have a really strong opinion on PF.

Good luck with that.

I like Alternate Class Features, since these let me create unique/different characters. I would really like to see the Eidetic Spellcaster variant (dragon magazing) carried over, because I enjoy the idea of a Wizard who isn't tied to a book.

I'd love non-book forms of wizardry myself. Eidetic uses incense to focus its memories, or you could have much better tattooing rules, or even lift the Witch's "my familiar is my spellbook" idea.

[Starbuck_II]

[*]A key component of 5E is that it incorporates "the best parts of previous editions."[*]5E will be "a universal rule set which unifies all players under one single system."[*]“Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset,” says Mearls. “He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.”[*]"They’re simple without being stupid, and efficient without being shallow. Combat was quick and satisfying; we got through most of an adventure in just a few hours. And I get the sense that fifth edition will bring back some of the good complexity of previous versions, allowing players to create unique characters and new worlds."

These three sounds most interesting.
Basically, it will be like 4E but have advice for making it like 2E or 3E?
So conversions will simple. That would be impressive.

[*]The return of powerful/crazy/varied magic in some form (as opposed to the more limited/balanced 4E Power system), and perhaps parallel systems for non-magical classes.

I don't see why you need crazy magic.
Powerful or varied yes, but not crazy.

The biggest issue that they need to resolve is that 4E Power system (At-Will/Encounter/Daily, gained from a set chart at the same rate for all players, with Powers being very limited, duplicative, and traded out for slightly more powerful versions every time you gain a level) is incompatible with every previous edition. They need to choose.

No, you could run 2E with 4E's power set.
It would be wierd but still run efficiently.
Would make the Thief better
Wizards would love being able to have at will magic in 2E.

It would be weak at higher levels in 3.5, but strong at low levels in 3.5. Really playtest that stuff: you'll see what I mean.
No 4E class features, only powers transfered over to 3.5 or 2E classes.

[Kerrin]

Actually, reading some of the blogs, it sounds like the basic idea behind 5e is going to be similar to what I was hoping for - a system of both modular rules and modular content designed for system-wide customization. If that design goal carries through to production, I might actually give it a shot.

My only concern about this approach is the same concern I have at work when someone proposes a system that "can do everything". If it's not designed properly (I'll avoid getting into system architecture and design here) you end up with a system that's not particularly good at anything.

If this is the path WotC has chosen, then I wish them luck and hope they have the skill to pull it off well.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't hate WotC. However, I do think that the current paradigm where we have one significant company and a bunch of tiny offshoots nobody has ever heard of is bad for the hobby, and would love to see WotC drop a bit, the vacuum get filled, and the market change to the point where those outside of it are even aware of games that are not D&D.

I gotta agree. Here (and in most other European countries) the RPG scene is not as DND-centric as in the US, and as a result the market is more varied, everyone knows about games other than their favorite one and a lot of people played more than one RPG system. The RPG market in Poland isn't very big, but it's steadily growing and we always (read: since the late nineties) had a healthy and active indie RPG scene.

[Trog]

A short economy lesson:
The three books that make most money for each edition of DND are Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual. The majority of DND purchases are made by people who are new to that particular edition. If WotC decided to release splats for old editions, they would sell less because they are splats AND because they are for an older edition, they would cause lower sales of similar splats to the current edition, and in addition to that WotC would have to put money and effort into actually writing and publishing the splat, one that would give negligible income in comparison to a splat for the current edition.
Printing the already published books for older editions would not fix the problem. Most of the old guard won't buy them because they already have them, and new players will pick up the latest edition most of the time anyway. Printing and then keeping a stock of books that will sell really badly wouldn't give enough income to make it worth it.

Short version: don't overestimate the purchasing power of the old guard. Look at the Transformers fandom, where the adult collectors complain that Hasbro isn't pandering to them even though they are a big chunk of the market. In reality, they make maybe 10% of the toy purchases - the rest are kids.

*nods* You may be right about that. Honestly I don't know for sure what WotC makes their money off of. They don't seem to say too often. Do you have a source for where they've said that? I'm not trying to say you're wrong I'm just curious is all. *curious kitty* --> =o.o=

But if I look at what they put out I think they cater more towards the players than the DM. There's maybe 4-5 times more players than DMs out there simply because of the preferred gaming group size of 4-5 players to one DM. So more books on stuff players can use means 4-5 times the amount of book sales than if they put out a DM book. That's probably over-simplifying it but the players books definitely outnumber the DM-only ones.

Also in that newspaper article didn't they say they were trying to battle the image of D&D as requiring too much work to set up and run? Wouldn't that mean that they might be looking to produce more setting books and adventures? Anyone know any more about this?

[Saph]

So, simplified core rules with optional rules layered on top, drawing upon the best parts of previous editions. What will this look like?

My best guess:

• A core mechanic of 1d20 + (1/2 level) + relevant attribute vs something, which will be used to resolve most mechanical issues.
• Simple rules for grapple, equipment, encumbrance, etc, with optional more complex tables of rules for people who want to track that sort of thing.
• The return of powerful/crazy/varied magic in some form (as opposed to the more limited/balanced 4E Power system), and perhaps parallel systems for non-magical classes.

Very interesting - thanks for doing all the work to organise this!

Like you, I'm most interested to know if they're going to stick with the rigid power layout of 4e (everyone gets X at-wills, Y per-encounters, and Z dailies). Off the top of my head I can't see how they could keep it and still have the variety of pre-4e classes, so this is the big question for me.

[Tengu_temp]

*nods* You may be right about that. Honestly I don't know for sure what WotC makes their money off of. They don't seem to say too often. Do you have a source for where they've said that? I'm not trying to say you're wrong I'm just curious is all. *curious kitty* --> =o.o=

I don't have any specific sources, but each time WotC or an RPG internet shop shows a list of bestselling DND books, the three core books tend to be on the top. It also makes sense, considering that you need them to play, unlike the splats - so it's obvious that more people will own them.

[Tyndmyr]

Posted on behalf of one of my players.

I want a game where throwing away the map is easier than throwing away the rulebook.

[ken-do-nim]

Because despite dividing into 5 (which is a strange statement, how many people actually still play AD&D or OD&D?) they would be supporting their one true edition.

I do. TSR never put out a proper Castle Greyhawk mega-dungeon, they should buy the rights from Gail Gygax, hire Jeff T. who knows everything Gary planned for it, and they'd have a MONSTER hit on their hands.

[Volos]

You might as well ask your favorite fast food chain to make their food in all varriations of the recipies from when they opened to today avaliable on their menu. Asking WoTC to publish materials from all four previous editions of D&D is too much. They wouldn't be able to make enough money off of publishing four games to pay the people developing the materials for them, much less to actually make a profit. Your DM/GM should be able to convert any published setting, book he just read, movie he just watched, original idea, or player concepts into a game in your favorite edition. If he/she cannot do that much, they aren't a true DM/GM.

[Mando Knight]

Windows 7 bears a lot of similarities to Windows Vista. It's more refined and fixes a lot of the problems Vista has, but 7 is closer to Vista than either is to XP.

Yeah. Vista actually got several service packs and other updates to fix a lot of its problems, but 7 is really a better Vista. Personally, I think that if Vista didn't have the issues it did at launch, we wouldn't have needed 7 at all. XP is ancient in terms of operating systems, and both Vista and 7 have a bunch of neat interface features that XP doesn't have built-in.

They wouldn't be able to make enough money off of publishing four games to pay the people developing the materials for them, much less to actually make a profit.

This, so much. Even just continuing to reprint the existing material goes against Hasbro's current market strategy, except for limited collector's edition of their biggest brands. And D&D actually isn't one of their biggest brands: 4e was in part due to Hasbro demanding that WotC bring up their D&D sales or else. It's still too much of a "nerd thing" compared to the more mainstream Hasbro properties such as Transformers, My Little Pony, or GI Joe, and doesn't lend itself as well to ridiculous amounts of cash-cow profits like Magic does.

[erikun]

The best thing for WotC to do, in my opinion, would be to release all the previous edition books in PDFs. Sell them for something like 10¢, maybe the core rulesets for free. Also, give people the option of buying them with their DDI login, with unlimited free downloads of any of the books they purchase. Chance of pirating? That isn't the point.

4e obtained a large amount of virol simply because of WotC's anti-3e attitude when it came out. Pretty much every other edition came out with the attitude of "We've come up with this really great way of playing the game better!" and typically took the time to try to convert or represent previous edition ideas in the newest system. When 4e came out, it felt far more like "Okay, we have a new edition now! Stop playing the old one!" The news of the 3e-or-4e publication rights throughout the internet really didn't help them much, either.

Hence, the idea of giving older-editions people something they may want: downloadable PDFs of all their previous edition material. And, most likely, encourage them to use DDI... possibly paying WotC more, and exposing more users to pre-release 5e material. (See, it isn't all a loss for WotC either.)

As WotC themselves said when they bought D&D they had been playing it a long time. So they knew 2nd ed already. Which is very very similar to 1st ed. They themselves developed 3.x and 4.x. Again there's no system to learn there for them.

Unless you are talking about someone who has been employed in the WotC D&D department from its beginning in 2000 to today, I don't think that person will be as familiar with every edition as you claim. What's more, I'm pretty sure that a large number of people working on D&D today weren't around during 3e's design phases; I get the impression that there has been a lot of "reshuffling" several times within the last decade.

[Trog]

I don't have any specific sources, but each time WotC or an RPG internet shop shows a list of bestselling DND books, the three core books tend to be on the top. It also makes sense, considering that you need them to play, unlike the splats - so it's obvious that more people will own them.

*nods* Makes sense.

You might as well ask your favorite fast food chain to make their food in all varriations of the recipies from when they opened to today avaliable on their menu.

I WANT THE McRIB BACK! WHEN ARE YOU-- O.O ... well looky there it's back.

Unless you are talking about someone who has been employed in the WotC D&D department from its beginning in 2000 to today, I don't think that person will be as familiar with every edition as you claim. What's more, I'm pretty sure that a large number of people working on D&D today weren't around during 3e's design phases; I get the impression that there has been a lot of "reshuffling" several times within the last decade.

Hmm... has it been that long already? My how the time flies.

Anyhow this whole little exercise here is in response to the idea that WotC wanted more fan buy-in to avoid a splintering like what happened with the previous editions. This is all just a "what if." Seemed like a good way to get everyone to join hands and sing kumbayah or what have you. I'm sure they have half of 5e figured out already and merely looking for a little feedback to either shore up or pick from among their already developed solutions for the bulk of the new system.

[kyoryu]

Meh. I think what they need to do more than anything is figure out their business model.

How do they attract and retain players? How can they monetize the player base?

I think that releasing new editions continually is probably the worst thing they can do. Each new edition represents an exit opportunity for the playerbase. At best, it fragments the base. At worst, it causes defections to other games or from the hobby as a whole.

New version or not, they need to get their heads around how to get players into the game, how to keep them, and how to grow them. Encounters is only the start, at best.

Focusing on turning players into a revenue stream without looking at how to build the playerbase, including dealing with appropriate levels of churn, is putting the cart before the horse.

This, so much. Even just continuing to reprint the existing material goes against Hasbro's current market strategy, except for limited collector's edition of their biggest brands. And D&D actually isn't one of their biggest brands: 4e was in part due to Hasbro demanding that WotC bring up their D&D sales or else. It's still too much of a "nerd thing" compared to the more mainstream Hasbro properties such as Transformers, My Little Pony, or GI Joe, and doesn't lend itself as well to ridiculous amounts of cash-cow profits like Magic does.

This, basically. The real problem is that D&D is not, conceptually, the kind of revenue-generation machine that Magic is, and it's not mass-market enough to bring in the kind of revenue that GI Joe does.

Or to put it more clearly, it doesn't have the audience that GI Joe does, nor the revenue per person of Magic.

I do think there's real opportunity here, though, but that opportunity will be taken up by whoever figures out how to do an effective RPG in the internet era. That's where the growth is, not rulesets.

[horseboy]

{{scrubbed}}

[horseboy]

{{scrubbed}}

[Seerow]

Wait, I'm confused. Do you want 3.5 or do you want a roleplaying game?

*rimshot* msgtooshort

[Person_Man]

1) Dungeons and Dragons: The Board Game: Made to introduce players to Dungeons and Dragons. It comes in a board game sized red box, with a large dragon in a clearly drawn dungeon fighting some heroes on it. It must be able to sit on the same shelf as Risk and Monopoly in the Walmart and Target. The price must be as cheap as possible. The rule book should be comprehensible to an intelligent 13 year old and/or their parents who have never played a roleplaying game without talking down to them, focusing on the importance of story telling, and making the players active participants and shapers of the story. The rule book should lay out the basics of what a roleplaying game is, how to play the game, what classes are, and some pre-made characters with instructions on how they can be customized. There will be no acronyms or rules jargon in the rule books (just spell out Player Character, Dungeon Master, Strength, etc). It must include non-random high quality multi-color miniatures (not monotone), including one for each of the 5ish base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Something Cool) which match those in the box cover art, some undead or orc-ish mooks, and a dragon. You must be able to see the miniatures through a clear plastic window in the box, so that the 13 year old sees what he's getting. There must be a d20, and any other dice you need to roll for damage. There must be a map(s), and preferably dungeon tiles (like the Castle Ravenloft). There must be a module/adventure, which leads the characters from level 1-4ish, and includes various choose your own adventure-ish options explicitly laid out for the Dungeon Master. At the end of the module and rule book, there must be a full color add which states "If you would like to continue your adventure and learn more about Dungeons and Dragons, take a look at..."

2) Dungeons and Dragons: Core Rule Set: A large, glossy, hardcover core rule set which builds upon the board game and does not contradict anything written in it. The book's font and logo are exactly the same as the Board Game version, and it also has a the same set of adventurers in different combat poses fighting a different large dragon in a different dungeon on the front cover. The front cover has the sentence, "Everything you need to play the classic role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons." printed on it, and that sentence must be true. The book must in no way contradict the rules in the Board Game, but instead builds upon them by adding higher level class abilities, more classes, optional rules for Skills, optional rules for Feats, optional rules for equipment and magic items, optional rules for rituals, optional rules for combat maneuvers, optional rules for psionics, optional rules for multi-classing, etc. One layered on top of the other, taking the best parts of each previous edition, without contradicting each other. Everything a DM needs to know to create/plan/run a game is also in this book (and not printed in a separate book), along with an adventure that takes players from level 4ish to 8ish, including the stats for a dozen or so different iconic D&D monsters (a dragon, beholder, displacer beast, githyanki, mind flayer, rust monster, etc). Put all or most of it up in an Open Game License, and a new SRD. In the back of the book, there needs to be a large color add for...

3) The Crowd Sourced World Building Competition: Put out a $25,000 prize and a writing contract to whoever submits the best game world and new set of optional rules (new magic system, new combat system, new Skill system, whatever). Let teams of people work on it together if they want. Let the internet community vote comment on it, vote on it, pick the winner, and edit the final product before it is published.

4) Everything Else: Republish all of your previous books and any new material to your hearts content, with a focus on making all of it compatible with the Core Rule Set. Buy Paizo out and have them re-write their own products to be compatible with 5E, or have them do your web content or magazine or whatever. 90% of the edition wars was because people felt screwed. Say you're sorry, buy off your competitors, and move on.

Thoughts?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

They need a new edition as an attempt to make some money, but aside from that I suppose I wouldn't mind more 3.5 support. New and interesting subsystems especially!

Horseboy comment/response

Spoiler

Show

Sight unseen 5th. Though I suspect that has something to do with my preference to being repeatedly kicked in the tally-whacker than deal with the mess that is 3.x.
You're leaving out those of us that left D&D for actual role playing games.

Pff. Players > System every time, barring FATAL. I've played in crapsack systems with simplistic, abstract, and still somehow broken mechanics (Dogs). I've played in Frankenstein-style homebrew mashups of various genres that didn't make sense (Shadowrun --> Starcrafthulhu?). As I may have admitted in a previous thread, I've friggin' roleplayed in board games (various, including Twilight Imperium). And of course, anyone can roleplay with no system at all!

So if you can't play D&D of all things as a roleplaying game in your group, that's your problem.

[Manateee]

Players who left D&D for games that interfere less with roleplay, then.

[turkishproverb]

Because despite dividing into 5 (which is a strange statement, how many people actually still play AD&D or OD&D?) they would be supporting their one true edition.

Printing works on economies of scale. Making smaller print runs of 4 different books costs far more than one larger print run of 1 book. On top of that, you have to pay people to actually develop 4 different books.

In the very best case scenario, you spend significantly more money to get a little bit of the old user base back. On the other hand, with 5e they have a chance to convert the old customers they've lost, so they can get their numbers up again without having to spend all the extra money.

It wouldn't be profitable. 99.9% of the players still playing 2E or earlier editions are grognards who have been playing those games since last century. In addition, gaming design and philosophy has surpassed the rather restrictive nature of those rules. There won't be new customers for old systems.

Pathfinder has a market because despite the rage of those who abandoned 3E for 4E, there are still a good number of current customers who like the 3E system. WOTC chose to fire those customers for its 4E system, choosing instead to side with those who were enraged and market for new customers who never played D&D before.

5E will be the barometer to tell whether WOTC wants its 3E customers back. I don't expect it to be 3E with just a 5 pasted over it, but the nature of it won't be known until it's published. If they were to try to get 3E customers back, they might opt to bring back Vancian magic and the more familiar spells for spellcasters, tweaked to satisfy those who get apoplectic over Gate or Glitterdust, but use the 4E model for warrior classes.

There is actually a growing AD&D community, thanks to the multiple retroclones. I know people who play OSRIC that never touched the old books. Same with expanded Labyrinth Lord.

This is my point, and there's nothing we can do to stop 5e coming out. Or the other editions where they revise the system and get suckers like us to buy it. And we will.

Yea, I probably will. Main reason I didn't buy the 4E Books to test the system out (instead playing in someone else's game) was the way they lied about development. Here, they're being more honest.

[Knaight]

There is actually a growing AD&D community, thanks to the multiple retroclones. I know people who play OSRIC that never touched the old books. Same with expanded Labyrinth Lord.

Which simply indicates a handful of known cases. You can't actually say that the community is growing unless you have some notion as to both the rate of growth and the rate of loss. People stop playing as well, and for all we know there are new players, and a shrinking community.

[ken-do-nim]

Which simply indicates a handful of known cases. You can't actually say that the community is growing unless you have some notion as to both the rate of growth and the rate of loss. People stop playing as well, and for all we know there are new players, and a shrinking community.

Fair enough, but I can tell you that publishers are out there making money with supplements for the OSRIC, LL, and S&W rulesets. To deny the market is dishonest.

For that matter, I think another 3.5 targeted book on the caliber of Book of Nine Swords would be a huge seller.