# 6e?  Why?



## generic

Hmm, I think I need a more controversial title...

Do we *really* need a sixth edition?

Discuss.


----------



## Morrus

Nope.


----------



## Dispater

No need for it. 5e is probably as allright as classic d&d/d20 mechanics will ever get from an official channel.


----------



## Charlaquin

It doesn’t really matter if we need it or not, it will happen eventually. That said, it’s not happening any time soon. 5e is doing far too well for WotC to kill it yet. Maybe in another 5 years.


----------



## PabloM

No, we don´t. But eventually will happen. 
What I fear the most a "5.5" edition or something like that.


----------



## Oofta

No.  Even if we did, there would be a vocal minority that claimed it was completely broken because ____.  Any disagreement with that statement would be met with pages of derision and math showing how wrong you are.


----------



## Umbran

Oofta said:


> No.  Even if we did, there would be a vocal minority that claimed it was completely broken because ____.




Because "need" is not objective.  Different people have different needs.

Edition wars are basically an Old-West conflict between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers.  They both use the land for similar things, but they're needs are slightly different, and mutually exclusive.


----------



## Zardnaar

I expect 5E to last another 3 years minimum more like 5 or 6. They might actually make the 10 year thing for the 1st time since 2E.


----------



## Charlaquin

PabloM said:


> No, we don´t. But eventually will happen.
> What I fear the most a "5.5" edition or something like that.




The ideal next step, in my opinion, would be for WotC to finally deliver on the promise of modular rules that they kept trumpeting during the playtest. Rather than a new edition or .5 that replaces 5.0, they could release optional rules hacks that could be used to sort of build your own 5.x, or stick with 5.0 if you prefer.


----------



## Umbran

Charlaquin said:


> The ideal next step, in my opinion, would be for WotC to finally deliver on the promise of modular rules that they kept trumpeting during the playtest. Rather than a new edition or .5 that replaces 5.0, they could release optional rules hacks that could be used to sort of build your own 5.x, or stick with 5.0 if you prefer.




The thing is, a new edition is primarily going to be driven by a business need - to reinvigorate sales.  I'm pretty sure a toolbox based on the same core won't achieve that end.  Toolboxes are for gearheads, and I'm not sure the gearheads who want to build their own game out of parts is a large enough market to satisfy the business need.

I'm going to guess the growing business need will be around attracting and keeping a new generation of gamers.


----------



## AriochQ

There are portions of 5e that could benefit from a new version.  The ones that come to mind are:  Grappling, vision, rest/encounters per day and, of course, the overpowered GWM and SS feats.

They don't make the game unplayable by any means, but I do find the above to be the weakest part of 5e.

Do I want to buy a whole new set of books to fix these warts?  Probably not.  Also, they would probably just mess up other portions of the ruleset that are working just fine at the moment.


----------



## TwoSix

I can see a re-release and re-imagining, but I think this is pretty much the evergreen version of D&D, as long as Hasbro holds the license.  A new "PHB" might have new classes and races for a new setting, but the core rules will stay compatible with the 2014 PHB.


----------



## Oofta

Umbran said:


> Because "need" is not objective.  Different people have different needs.
> 
> Edition wars are basically an Old-West conflict between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers.  They both use the land for similar things, but they're needs are slightly different, and mutually exclusive.




To be fair, the cattle ranchers did have a point.  Sheep are much more destructive because they eat more of the plant.  Of course the Native Americans also had a point because the cattle turned much of the southwest into the barren landscape it is now instead of savanna.  Of course the mega-fauna that lived in the Americas before humans showed up also had a point ... 

Let's just say all editions are flawed in some way or other, all have some ways in which some will claim they are better.  I like 5E because it works well enough, and it's modular enough for me and my group.


----------



## pogre

I hope not. I seem to have better luck with odd-numbered editions.


----------



## Gladius Legis

It'll probably happen eventually a few years down the road, but no, it's not needed. And if (when?) it happens, I can't imagine it being a radical change from 5e. Unlike 3e, 5e isn't fundamentally broken, so there would be no need for a 6e to attempt the radical changes 4e tried to make. It would just have to address the moving parts of 5e that need to be addressed.

In other words, I'd expect 5e -> 6e to be MUCH more akin to 1e -> 2e than 3e -> 4e.


----------



## PabloM

TwoSix said:


> I can see a re-release and re-imagining, but I think this is pretty much the evergreen version of D&D, as long as Hasbro holds the license.  A new "PHB" might have new classes and races for a new setting, but the core rules will stay compatible with the 2014 PHB.




This would be really wonderful, but I think it´s an utopia. If an all-new-with-new-ruleset-PHB sells, then they will (eventually) repeat the formula. 
The important thing here is that the bussines men ideas can merge with the rpg creative ideas.


----------



## jgsugden

On a completely related note: I wonder if Enworld should have an anti-clickbait policy on thread titles.


----------



## Cyber-Dave

I have no desire for a new edition right now.


----------



## Charlaquin

Umbran said:


> The thing is, a new edition is primarily going to be driven by a business need - to reinvigorate sales.  I'm pretty sure a toolbox based on the same core won't achieve that end.  Toolboxes are for gearheads, and I'm not sure the gearheads who want to build their own game out of parts is a large enough market to satisfy the business need.
> 
> I'm going to guess the growing business need will be around attracting and keeping a new generation of gamers.




You are absolutely right about that. That’s why I said it would be the ideal in my opinion, not the ideal business decision for WotC.


----------



## Sunseeker

Like 6E _now_?  Heck no.  6E *E*_ventually_ yeah, games advance, gamers move on, demands change.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Zardnaar said:


> I expect 5E to last another 3 years minimum more like 5 or 6. They might actually make the 10 year thing for the 1st time since 2E.




Yeah, my hunch is they are shooting for keeping this version alive for a decade, and releasing a "Gold Edition" for the game's 50th anniversary.


----------



## Arilyn

Umbran said:


> The thing is, a new edition is primarily going to be driven by a business need - to reinvigorate sales.  I'm pretty sure a toolbox based on the same core won't achieve that end.  Toolboxes are for gearheads, and I'm not sure the gearheads who want to build their own game out of parts is a large enough market to satisfy the business need.
> 
> I'm going to guess the growing business need will be around attracting and keeping a new generation of gamers.




Yes, I agree. Hasbro will want the biggest numbers possible. 
6e will come about when sales inevitably slip. If, for some reason, interest in DnD drops dramatically, Hasbro will shelve the game, wait few years, then bring it out with huge fanfare. I am very dubious that 5e is the final edition.  Not happening soon, however.


----------



## Jester David

*Why?*
Sales. Because D&D is no longer profitable in its current state. 

It takes a lot of time and money to make a new edition. Development costs are high, since you're paying your best people to work on a new game for several years. 
And it's a risk since no edition change has a 100% conversion rate. You risk losing more people than are currently buying. 
So it's not something the business does on a whim. 

And it's certainly not something done because the designers want to do something new and scratch their game design itch. Or because they think they could improve things. 
Dirty secret: no game is ever perfect. Perfect balance is an illusion. Every game will have warts and flaws and proud nails. 6e will have giant flaws that grate on the DM & players after a while. So will 7e. And despite decades of greater game design experience and wisdom, I can guarantee that there will be problems with 8th Edition. The designers of 8e will look at their creation six months after launch and say "oh mannnn, I wish I could go back and fix _____."

Recuse making a game is a creative endeavour. Artists look at their art and see the flaws. It took Da Vinci four years to make the Mona Lisa and he reworked it several times and still wasn't happy with the final product. 

*When?*
2017 was the best year D&D has ever had. And 2018 is shaping up to match that, if not beat it. 

Let's go hypothetical and say this is the apex. And things decline rather than plateauing, doing so at a rate comparable to its growth. Even then, it should be able to go another 4 years before things get bad enough to warrant a new edition. Because even falling to 2014 levels would mean D&D is kicking all the ass. Sales wise.
That means we can expect 5e to be successful well until 2022. Easily. And likely far longer, since it'd have to drop well below 2014 sales levels to be a failure. It'd have to decline for several more years before things get bad enough to risk a rebook.

But let's consider what happens if sales just spike downward after this year. People stop buying. 
They work a couple years ahead, so they couldn't just stop production. And they'd want to wait a little to see if the drop corrects itself or was temporary. Plus, it takes a three to four years to make a new edition. If they start work on that a couple years into the downturn—which is the earliest they would likely do so—that would be 2023. 

But... their first reaction would not be to make a new edition. Their first reaction would be some new initiates to boost sales and reinvigorate the edition. So they'd try and reverse a downturn by 2020 and see if that works or fails by 2021. This would delay 6e to 2024.

Again, that's the _earliest_.


----------



## jaelis

PabloM said:


> No, we don´t. But eventually will happen.
> What I fear the most a "5.5" edition or something like that.




Myself I would like a 5.5. I think the basic core of the rules are great, but the are some parts that could be improved. 

Unlike many, though, I appreciated 3.5e too


----------



## jgsugden

jaelis said:


> Myself I would like a 5.5. I think the basic core of the rules are great, but the are some parts that could be improved.
> 
> Unlike many, though, I appreciated 3.5e too



Given the comments, I feel like a 5.5 would eliminate bonus actions... so I hope we never get one.


----------



## dagger

I hope we get one soon, just so I can watch/read the meltdown, but some men just want to watch the world burn.


----------



## PabloM

jaelis said:


> Myself I would like a 5.5. I think the basic core of the rules are great, but the are some parts that could be improved.
> 
> Unlike many, though, I appreciated 3.5e too




I appreaciated 3.5 too, but no edition or game is perfect. What about when you get "the parts that could be improved" of 5.x? You will want a 5.75? and then? 
My point is we don´t necesary need to enter in a revised edition to enjoy D&D, and I think there is more to lose than to win.


----------



## Zardnaar

PabloM said:


> I appreaciated 3.5 too, but no edition or game is perfect. What about when you get "the parts that could be improved" of 5.x? You will want a 5.75? and then?
> My point is we don´t necesary need to enter in a revised edition to enjoy D&D, and I think there is more to lose than to win.




A 5.1 would be nice, 5E as is with a tidied up PHB and things like spell lists mentioning what classes have access to a'la 3.5/Pathfinder. Also a new index.


----------



## jaelis

I don’t need a 5.5 (5.1?) cedition, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like one. And if five years later they revise it again, I won’t complain.


----------



## ad_hoc

We are at least 10 years away. Probably 15-20.

D&D is selling better than ever.
If movies are successful then they won't want to confuse the core audience which is now people peripheral to hobby games rather than hobby gamers.


----------



## PabloM

Zardnaar said:


> A 5.1 would be nice, 5E as is with a tidied up PHB and things like spell lists mentioning what classes have access to a'la 3.5/Pathfinder. Also a new index.




Ah, that would be very nice, but it is not a 5.x edition (I mean a revised edition), it´s a reorganized 5e. I like that.


----------



## PabloM

jaelis said:


> I don’t need a 5.5 (5.1?) cedition, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like one. And if five years later they revise it again, I won’t complain.




I can´t argue anything to that.


----------



## fjw70

I am extremely happy with 5e and am not looking for anything soon (and don’t expect anything soon).  5e does strike a great balance between previous editions. It has a nice simple core and it is easy to convert earlier edition stuff. Besides D&D Beyond is still rampant no up.  It is already great but continues to get better.


----------



## Seramus

5E has been excellent. Though I do wish they would put out a revised Player’s Handbook that contains updates to a few subclasses and rules (like Rangers, Sorcerers, and Stealth).


----------



## Morrus

jgsugden said:


> On a completely related note: I wonder if Enworld should have an anti-clickbait policy on thread titles.




Honestly, I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I am also not opposed to 5.5 at aome point in the future.
3.5 improved some things (and did somw things very wrong).
Actually 5.1. Would be better.
The biggest problem with 3.5 however was that it was planned feom the beginning and that it was so different that it invalidated a lot of splat books.
I expect any update to 5 not to do that.


----------



## Dausuul

_Need?_ No, we don't _need_ one, any more than we needed 5E or 4E or 3E or 2E or 1E. We could still be playing OD&D today.

I do think it would be beneficial to have one eventually, though. I'm envisioning something like the 1E to 2E transition: The core of the system stays the same, and most old edition material can be easily adapted to the new, but a lot of stuff gets cleaned up and polished and streamlined, and the best splatbook material gets pulled into the core. It would provide the designers an opportunity to address all sorts of minor issues. Certain subclasses in the PHB that didn't really work and needed patching via splatbook (e.g., bladelock, beastmaster); the, shall we say, uneven performance of monsters in the Monster Manual; a couple of feats that need reining in; assorted oddities and counterintuitive bits in the rules.

However, the current edition has plenty of life left in it. I wouldn't want to see 6E rolled out until sometime in the 2020s.


----------



## generic

jgsugden said:


> On a completely related note: I wonder if Enworld should have an anti-clickbait policy on thread titles.




I had no intention of 'clickbaiting' anyone.

I only realize my folly now!


----------



## generic

Cyber-Dave said:


> I have no desire for a new edition right now.




Neither do I.


----------



## generic

I should state something...
I don't have a problem with 5e either.  In fact, it's certainly my favorite edition so far, and holds up well.  I don't expect a 6th edition to come out any time soon, but its inevitable rise does worry me.  Releasing another edition would simply split the player base as further editions did.  Maintaining 5e's profitability is difficult, but not impossible.  Maintaining D&D's profitability through another few editions would be extraordinarily difficult.  I yearn for the day WotC announces that 5e will be an evergreen edition.

However, I am a hypocrite, and would gladly buy any 6e products that would be released


----------



## 76512390ag12

Nope


----------



## ad_hoc

Aebir-Toril said:


> I should state something...
> I don't have a problem with 5e either.  In fact, it's certainly my favorite edition so far, and holds up well.  I don't expect a 6th edition to come out any time soon, but its inevitable rise does worry me.  Releasing another edition would simply split the player base as further editions did.  Maintaining 5e's profitability is difficult, but not impossible.  Maintaining D&D's profitability through another few editions would be extraordinarily difficult.  I yearn for the day WotC announces that 5e will be an evergreen edition.
> 
> However, I am a hypocrite, and would gladly buy any 6e products that would be released




It is.

I expect a 5.5e sometime in the far future. Which would be fine. I think the core of 5e is now D&D.

5e is pretty close to outselling all other editions combined. I expect 2018 to be its best year ever as 2017 was.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Yeah, my hunch is they are shooting for keeping this version alive for a decade, and releasing a "Gold Edition" for the game's 50th anniversary.




Plausible.  I think, at this point, it's clear that D&D doesn't need change or improvement for its own sake, it needs stability for the sake of the brand.  I'd expect future editions to be like special editions of Monopoly:  same game, but with cosmetic changes and details to fit a theme.  A 50th anniversary edition might be like that, essentially the same as 5e, maybe with some extra effort to evoke the early game...


----------



## jgsugden

Aebir-Toril said:


> Hmm, I think I need a more controversial title...
> 
> Do we *really* need a sixth edition?
> 
> Discuss.





Aebir-Toril said:


> I had no intention of 'clickbaiting' anyone.
> 
> I only realize my folly now!



If you're intentionally shooting for a controversial title...


----------



## Mercurius

Well they're coming out with special edition covers, which implies that we won't see a new edition anytime soon. And why would they? The game is booming and from what I gather, a lot more casual fans than in the previous two editions, which were both very crunchy and maybe a bit off-putting for the casual crowd. 

I think at most we see a cleaned up and mildly revised version, something like a 5.1 and 5.2 And even then, we probably won't see it until the 50th anniversary in 2024.

There are numerous ways to appeal to the hardcore fans that don't require a new edition: like settings, epic rules, rules variants, etc. Especially if they're happy with their 3-4 books a year schedule.

I think also 5th edition is based upon having relatively low overhead, with a small group of designers. They are done with the (failed) approach of the past: churn out as much product as possible in the hopes of making a slim profit, until the law of diminishing returns kicks in and then reboot with a new edition. I do think they are going for a "quasi-evergreen" edition.


----------



## AtomicPope

No and not for a very long time.  The WotC design team is still interested in updating classic DnD for 5e.  Don't forget, we still haven't received the following:
* Dark Sun
* Spelljammer
* Greyhawk
* Krynn
* Eberron
* Planescape
* Fiend Folio

There are many, many monsters and worlds that are waiting to find an official home in 5e and until they arrive there doesn't seem to be a need for WotC to scrap 5th Edition.


----------



## Umbran

PabloM said:


> ....but no edition or game is perfect.




I want to expand on this - "perfect" has no meaning in this context.  Saying no game is perfect is kind of like saying no ice cream flavor is perfect, or no novel is perfect.  In order for there to be perfection, there must be a single ideal everyone agrees would be perfection.  We don't have that.  

There will be a 6e if only because gaming has fashion trends just like every other product/market subject to aesthetics.


----------



## cbwjm

jgsugden said:


> Given the comments, I feel like a 5.5 would eliminate bonus actions... so I hope we never get one.



I feel that getting rid of bonus actions would be a plus and if I do pick up the next edition I hope they are no longer part of the game.


----------



## Brotton Goodfellow

I feel WoTC have done a good job keeping people interested in 5E. They haven't been afraid to give us free stuff in the form of Unearthed Arcana, and the stuff they make us pay for has been good quality (except the pre-painted minis, those are mostly garbage). Heck, there's even Dungeon Masters Guild, which has and will continue to provide us with material. I don't think that a new edition is coming anytime soon. They still have all the different settings to cover, and with those I'm guessing there's going to be new "*Blank's* guide to *blank*" books and adventure paths. Others have said on this thread, the only way we're getting a new edition is when they decide to start changing the core mechanics drastically. And even then, I don't think that'll happen until the masses begin demanding something completely different.


----------



## Les Moore

I wouldn't be surprised to see "Classic D&D"- reprints of the TSR originals, in possibly a nice tin box,
with special polys, and maybe a separate "Classic DM"  module.


----------



## Raith5

No way. I am not the biggest fan of 5e (I am a weirdo who liked 4e) but the game works well at my table and and has been so successful. I like to see some more "modularity" to create optional rules to push the game in different directions - but this doesnt to require a new edition.


----------



## Shiroiken

Given their current rate of release and popularity, I suspect 5E will survive (including 5.X versions) for at least as long as 3E, and probably longer. Since 5E is by far easily my favorite edition, I hope it lasts for at least another decade.

While "Evergreen" is the goal, eventually the financial needs of WotC will necessitate a new edition (since core books are the primary income of any RPG). Ideally this would come as 5.X versions that are backwards compatible (as 2E was originally supposed to be for 1E), so that non-core books are still relevant.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Aebir-Toril said:


> Do we *really* need a sixth edition?



I'm certainly not going to keep playing fifth edition forever. Its flaws become more glaring over time.

The quality of the game is very scatter-shot. The basic mechanics work well enough, but there are issues with save scaling and tool proficiencies and many other mechanics which simply don't work, and the magnitude of those changes would necessitate a new edition.


----------



## MNblockhead

With all the other systems out there that I wish I had to try, if I get tired of 5e, I would likely just move to a completely new system. I don't think a new edition would bring me back. That's how it was with 1e for me. I was heavily into 1e and then branched out into other other systems: Gama World, Star Frontiers, Warhammer, etc.  When 2e came out, it wasn't compelling enough for me to buy a whole new set of books. 

Of course, now I have so little time to play that it will take a longer time for me to tire of 5e and I already have more material than I have time to go through it. There would be no reason for me to buy a whole new edition. 

But who knows, maybe when I retire in 15-20 years, I'll have come full circle back to D&D and ready to become excited over a new edition again.


----------



## 76512390ag12

The skill will be to have a refresh that is attractive enough to old players to buy but didn't break compatibility.

Unless you need/want a new design philosophy then this isn't too hard.

A Golden Anniversary version, with a remix of classes/races/backgrounds, would make a PHB that would be fun and different enough but not break the compatibility (much.. a little reinterpretation or explication is good).

Maybe the same with MM, but I suggest not so much.

A new DMG could be 50-75% different, it's such an advisory book one could add value and variety.

Refresh the artwork and that's nice.

Oh and don't call them PHB2 or DMG2! That seems to have really caused problems with 4e.

I know the theory was that new edition drives sales but it also loses customers.

Plus.. there are many legal ways to buy all the older editions now, so is there really value in fragmenting the base again?

OS on computers are going the same way, evergreen OSX, I think Win10 might run and run.

If you *really* can't stand a single or multiple rules.. house ruling is the core RPG tradition.. be traditional and use it!


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Shiroiken said:


> While "Evergreen" is the goal, eventually the financial needs of WotC will necessitate a new edition (since core books are the primary income of any RPG).




Or Core books with all-new, special edition covers to get both collectors and new players to buy them?


----------



## Flakskader

I don't believe that a 6th edition is really required at the moment. Perhaps when material is abundant enough or , most likely, once rival companies start showing off systems that compete well with it, they might work on another edition. The only thing I can imagine is that a 6th edition would have a completely different set of gameplay rules compared to the previous editions, a little like what 4th Edition was bringing to the table. I don't think they could do any more work on the d20 ruleset without it just feeling like an unnecessary revamp.


----------



## ad_hoc

Shiroiken said:


> While "Evergreen" is the goal, eventually the financial needs of WotC will necessitate a new edition (since core books are the primary income of any RPG). Ideally this would come as 5.X versions that are backwards compatible (as 2E was originally supposed to be for 1E), so that non-core books are still relevant.




Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books.



Flakskader said:


> Perhaps when material is abundant enough or , most likely, once rival companies start showing off systems that compete well with it, they might work on another edition.




I don't think that is possible. D&D stands alone with no consequential competitors. 

Even when Pathfinder 2 comes out D&D will still beat their sales that month. Then the month after they will be back to being a blip compared to D&D.


----------



## OB1

Shiroiken said:


> While "Evergreen" is the goal, eventually the financial needs of WotC will necessitate a new edition (since core books are the primary income of any RPG).




I'm not sure about this assertion.  Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while.  They don't spend money on development, just on marketing and sales.  D&D could follow that path, needing only enough sales to new players to cover those costs.  As long as they maintained a healthy market share, there would be no reason to create a new edition.

If sales really drop, it wouldn't mean putting out a new edition, it would mean dropping supplement creation down to 1 every year or three.  If it's popularity picked back up, they could go back to three or four per year.  

If Hasbro wants D&D to be a game played through generations like Monopoly, Risk or Life, they can't keep reinventing it every 5-10 years.  And the bottom line is the minor flaws in the current system are vastly outweighed by the ease of use of the system and it's accessibility to casual gamers, who are driving sales year after year after being introduced to the game, having fun playing a Life cleric with a pig and the actor feat and then buying their own PHB.




Shiroiken said:


> Ideally this would come as 5.X versions that are backwards compatible (as 2E was originally supposed to be for 1E), so that non-core books are still relevant.




I could see very minor changes made in the future to the core books.  Perhaps a feat added or dropped here or an additional version of a class there.  Maybe a "Complete" Players handbook that at some point consolidates all of the class and feat options.  But no core rule changes.  Nothing that would mean that someone with an original PHB wouldn't have the same mechanics for as someone with a PHB printed in 2030.

And they certainly won't call it 5.x on the cover.  Sure us hardcore fans will notice and discuss it, but to the public, it will still just be the D&D PHB.  They don't even brand 5e on the cover of the core books now.


----------



## Flakskader

ad_hoc said:


> Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is possible. D&D stands alone with no consequential competitors.
> 
> Even when Pathfinder 2 comes out D&D will still beat their sales that month. Then the month after they will be back to being a blip compared to D&D.






I'm speaking hypothetically, sorry. That said, the fact there isn't a strong competitor, even if Pathfinder 2 is certainly gaining traction, is one of the main reasons there won't likely be another edition for a while.

Besides, I don't think any of us is ready to invest in MORE books and MORE accessories yet! Or have to go through another variation of

"But how does Proficiency Bonus work?"


----------



## Charlaquin

OB1 said:


> I'm not sure about this assertion.  Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while.



Actually... while it’s not nearly as common as in D&D, Monopoly has been revised a few times. The speed die from the Mega Edition I linked even got added to the standard edition as an optional rule.


----------



## OB1

Charlaquin said:


> Actually... while it’s not nearly as common as in D&D, Monopoly has been revised a few times. The speed die from the Mega Edition I linked even got added to the standard edition as an optional rule.




Exactly my point.  You point to one major rule change in 90 years, that's is also optional with the standard edition, and anyone who played in 1935 would still be able to play with a brand new set in 2018 and not have to completely relearn the game.


----------



## Bacon Bits

Monopoly is also significantly less complex than D&D.  The entirety of the rules for monopoly would comfortably fit inside the page length of a single class description of 5e.  Monopoly also has a fixed objective, strict set of actions, and so on.  The only imbalance in the game at all is the turn order.  Short of introducing a handicap of some kind for going first (i.e., +$15 starting money for every player who goes before you) there really isn't a way to deal with that.

Furthermore, Hasbro and Parker Brothers before it certainly worked hard at pushing sales with an endless number of special editions and licensed editions to the extent that some people collect the game.


----------



## Shiroiken

OB1 said:


> I'm not sure about this assertion.  Hasbro doesn't put out new editions of Monopoly or Life with changes to the core rules, they just dress them up in a new skin every once in a while.  They don't spend money on development, just on marketing and sales.  D&D could follow that path, needing only enough sales to new players to cover those costs.  As long as they maintained a healthy market share, there would be no reason to create a new edition.



Market share isn't enough, it's about profit and profit margin. If D&D doesn't create enough profit at a large enough margin, then something will need to be changed. This happened in 4E, which did fairly well initially, but failed to meet the unrealistic expectations set by either Hasbro or WotC. TSR had a huge amount of the market share during 2E, but still went bankrupt and had to sell to WotC. These are the unfortunate realities of corporate business. 



OB1 said:


> If sales really drop, it wouldn't mean putting out a new edition, it would mean dropping supplement creation down to 1 every year or three.  If it's popularity picked back up, they could go back to three or four per year.



 Cutting the total profit to increase the margin isn't enough. While profit margin is important, WotC will need D&D to provide a certain amount of overall profit. If the brand isn't producing a lot of profit, even at a high margin, the opportunity cost will make it not viable. I have heard the concept referred to a "throughput," but I don't believe that is the actual economic term. 



OB1 said:


> If Hasbro wants D&D to be a game played through generations like Monopoly, Risk or Life, they can't keep reinventing it every 5-10 years.  And the bottom line is the minor flaws in the current system are vastly outweighed by the ease of use of the system and it's accessibility to casual gamers, who are driving sales year after year after being introduced to the game, having fun playing a Life cleric with a pig and the actor feat and then buying their own PHB.



RPGs are not boardgames, and have different requirements and concerns. Even in boardgames, except the ones that earn the title of "classic" or "gateway game" eventually go out of print and disappear. In boardgaming circles, it's referred to as the "cult of the new," as the new hot games replace the hot games from just a few years ago. Admittedly in the US, most people think of the classic games you mentioned, but that is slowly changing as the general population becomes aware of the boardgame renaissance that's been going on for the last decade.

As for RPGs, they have a shelf life that will eventually expire. This was on display at the end of 2E, which is the only edition I've seen that overstayed its lifespan. Most people like 2E, but were ready for 3E when it came out. It updated a lot of clunky mechanics that were baked into the game (which many people had already houseruled). It added new innovative new mechanics that could not simply be added into 2E, such as the Feat system. 

Unfortunately, the trend so far has become shorter life cycles for RPGs, which is a bad thing. OD&D lasted only about 3-4 years or so, but it was a rough system built as the concept of RPGs was formed. 1E lasted 12 years, 2E lasted 11 years, 3E lasted 8 years (of which 5years was 3.5E), and 4E lasted only about 4-5 years. BECMI was the longest lived, going about 23 years, over which time it had 4 different iterations (but only 2 major versions, IIRC). This is the trend I want to see bucked, and 5E is doing a hell of job with it. At almost 4 years old, it has no signs of slowing, and I fully expect it to last another 4 without any edition updates (such as a 5.5E). After that I don't know, but hope that it will be the longest lasting edition other than BECMI.



OB1 said:


> I could see very minor changes made in the future to the core books.  Perhaps a feat added or dropped here or an additional version of a class there.  Maybe a "Complete" Players handbook that at some point consolidates all of the class and feat options.  But no core rule changes.  Nothing that would mean that someone with an original PHB wouldn't have the same mechanics for as someone with a PHB printed in 2030.
> 
> And they certainly won't call it 5.x on the cover.  Sure us hardcore fans will notice and discuss it, but to the public, it will still just be the D&D PHB.  They don't even brand 5e on the cover of the core books now.



Unfortunately, as I said that's not the reality of things. At the very least I'd expect a 5.X version by 2030, which as I said, I would hope to be backwards compatible. You are correct they wouldn't call it 5.X, but perhaps PHB revised or something.




ad_hoc said:


> Will that happen? 2017 was a stronger year than 2014. While the growth will decline I imagine the customer base to buy new books will be far higher than that of a 6e. Well, at least the risk will be there. Plus it is better to have a stronger brand to support movies which are worth much more than some core books.



I don't think the edition really effects the "brand" concept that much, unless you have a massive shift, like what happened between 3E and 4E that divides the player base. The movie (if it ever happens) won't be tied to an edition, but simply the concept of D&D. Most of the video games they've done have only paid lip service to the rules of any edition of the game. Because of this, I don't think a move to a 6E would significantly hurt the "brand."

Right now 5E is doing great with bringing in new players, which means more core books purchased, and hopefully that continues for a long time. Eventually, however, you will run out of new players buying core rule books, or at least the number will slow enough to become an issue for WotC. Assuming you will always have a huge influx of new players was one of the flawed premises of 4E.


----------



## generic

jgsugden said:


> If you're intentionally shooting for a controversial title...




You have me there.


----------



## ad_hoc

Shiroiken said:


> I don't think the edition really effects the "brand" concept that much, unless you have a massive shift, like what happened between 3E and 4E that divides the player base. The movie (if it ever happens) won't be tied to an edition, but simply the concept of D&D. Most of the video games they've done have only paid lip service to the rules of any edition of the game. Because of this, I don't think a move to a 6E would significantly hurt the "brand."
> 
> Right now 5E is doing great with bringing in new players, which means more core books purchased, and hopefully that continues for a long time. Eventually, however, you will run out of new players buying core rule books, or at least the number will slow enough to become an issue for WotC. Assuming you will always have a huge influx of new players was one of the flawed premises of 4E.




It absolutely does.

D&D has gone mainstream. If people aren't playing it they know people who do. More people are playing D&D than ever, and it's not even close.

The 'player base' of 3e and 4e doesn't matter at all. The new non-hobby gamers massively overshadows that player base.

If they change editions it will sour people on it. The momentum will be killed.


----------



## Satyrn

OB1 said:


> Exactly my point.  You point to one major rule change in 90 years, that's is also optional with the standard edition, and anyone who played in 1935 would still be able to play with a brand new set in 2018 and not have to completely relearn the game.




The last time I played Monopoly, it took me until the third time I landed on the Income Tax square to notice that I didn't have the option to pay 10% of my wealth.


----------



## reelo

What I'd really like to see is not a 6E, but rather a product comparable to BX D&D, but based entirely upon 5E. Kind of like the free basic rules, but trimmed down even more.
4 races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling) 4 classes (Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief) with only one archetype, folded right into the class. No feats, No inspiration, no Background, no Hero Points, and all the other intricacies of the system removed.
Then, add aome solid rules for henchmen and retainers, wilderness exploration and hexcrawling, domain-building and DONE.


----------



## Tony Vargas

OB1 said:


> And the bottom line is the minor flaws in the current system are vastly outweighed by the ease of use of the system and it's accessibility to casual gamers, who are driving sales year after year after being introduced to the game.



 Those flaws are not minor, and accessibility to new/casual gamers could be a lot better.  What's outwieghing those deep, perennial flaws in the mechanics and the accessibility issues the exacerbate is /acceptability/ to long-time and, especially, returning fans from the fad years.  

D&D is in the grip of an over-due come-back, and being genuine to the original (original to the fad years, anyway) has been critical in getting that rolling.  Returning or potential new players thinking of trying the somewhat-famous (if for teen suicide & satanism and being irredeemably nerdy) D&D are, afterall, looking to get something of the D&D experience you would have had you tried it 40 years ago.  



Mercurius said:


> Well they're coming out with special edition covers, which implies that we won't see a new edition anytime soon. And why would they? The game is booming and from what I gather, a lot more casual fans than in the previous two editions, which were both very crunchy and maybe a bit off-putting for the casual crowd.



 I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before & for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&D (and not).  4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM).  The system was just much clearer and more consistent.  

Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time.  

5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible.  It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.'  



> I think at most we see a cleaned up and mildly revised version, something like a 5.1 and 5.2 And even then, we probably won't see it until the 50th anniversary in 2024.



 Agreed.



> There are numerous ways to appeal to the hardcore fans that don't require a new edition: like settings, epic rules, rules variants, etc. Especially if they're happy with their 3-4 books a year schedule.



 Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term.  5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think.  We have to make our own excitement.  But we're used to that.  



> I think also 5th edition is based upon having relatively low overhead, with a small group of designers. They are done with the (failed) approach of the past: churn out as much product as possible.



 To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done).  



> I do think they are going for a "quasi-evergreen" edition.



 Also agreed.  Essentials & 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form & feel (& dysfucntion) of the classic game.  Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly.  5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> I ran for Encounters through much of it's run (some seasons I got to play, because the segue from player to DM was pretty easy), and I've run introductory games at conventions before & for AL since, so I've seen a lot of genuinely-new players take to D&D (and not).  4e was very accessible to new players and well-suited for casual play, as well as being surprisingly easy to DM).  The system was just much clearer and more consistent.
> 
> Casual play is something that was growing rapidly in the Encounters years, already, it was returning players and established fans that were problematic at the time.




Not to get into edition wars, but the issue I had with 4E was not with low levels (and I'm an old-school guy).  It was higher level play that it just started grinding to a halt and turned me (and my group) off.  When a single round can take an hour or more, there's something wrong.

So it wasn't just that it didn't feel like "traditional" D&D or turning off old school players.  That was part of it, but it was also that those newbies that grasped the game easily at lower levels all seemed to drop out when we started hitting higher levels.  In addition, there was always that persistent, but hard-to-identify aspect of 4E that killed innovation and creativity.

Don't get me wrong, _all_ editions of D&D have warts.  But I gave 4E the ol' college try and after running a campaign and playing up to level 30, I would have switched over to a different RPG if 5E hadn't come out.

YMMV of course.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Not to get into edition wars, but the issue I had with 4E was not with low levels (and I'm an old-school guy).  It was higher level play that it just started grinding to a halt and turned me (and my group) off.



 Nod.  That happened to my old group when we first hit Paragon.  Not a halt, litterally, of course, but there's a definite shift at paragon, you get Path abilities to think about, and off-turn actions become much more common.  It took a little getting used to.   



> So it wasn't just that it didn't feel like "traditional" D&D or turning off old school players.



 'Old School' to me means the guys who've been playing since back in the day and are really hard-core about it.  I'd be one of them if I hadn't played so many other games besides D&D over the years.   But there was a huge demographic of folks who played D&D back in the day, and then never touched RPGs again, when they come back, they think "I know this stuff" or "I'll start out simple with a fighter" and when they find out they don't, and it's not, it turns 'em off.  Saw it happen more than a few times.  
The really hard-core old school had already abandoned WotC over 3.0!    The ones that hadn't jumped ship to Arduin Grimoire decades before... 



> That was part of it, but it was also that those newbies that grasped the game easily at lower levels all seemed to drop out when we started hitting higher levels.



   The transition into running 4e was surprisingly easy, and the game remained functional at high level, so you'd get someone showing up for a season or two of encounters, then running a season, then home games would spin off - they'd even go through Epic.  

It's not like everyone who tried D&D has loved it, ever, but the immediate rejection, the try it once & never again reaction that I was acustomed to from 1e & 3e (and a few other games, for that matter), and still see in 5e, was just less pronounced in 4e.   It was just a more accessible version of the game.

Likewise, I was used to high level campaigns falling appart in the low double-digits, but 4e held up much better than that.  I'm still running a campaign that's at 25th, and playing in one that's at 23rd, both intend to go through to 30.  The highest I'd ever gotten a campaign to in 1e was 14th (with a standard class, there was one PC who hit 18th, but it was with a custom class that needed very little exp to level), that's also the best I've seen a 3.x campaign do, usually a lot worse.  



> In addition, there was always that persistent, but hard-to-identify aspect of 4E that killed innovation and creativity.



 It's not hard to identify:  4e was just functional out of the box (OK, and a year or so of errata!) and easy to run.  The game itself, was innovative (for D&D, which is damning with faint praise, indeed).  You could be creative all you _wanted_:  you just weren't forced to in order to keep your game from imploding.  You could be creative as a player just be re-skinning choices, you didn't need to rip out the guts of the mechanics and re-wire them just to make something a little off the wall.

OTOH, I noticed, after running 5e at AL for a bit, I got back into the habbit of running in the improvisational style I'd favored back in the day, and it crept right back into my 4e camaign, as well.   

That general sort of thing seemed true with a lot of the 'sytle' complaints.  People would say "this doesn't 'support' my style!"  No, it just doesn't force your style.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod.  That happened to my old group when we first hit Paragon.  Not a halt, litterally, of course, but there's a definite shift at paragon, you get Path abilities to think about, and off-turn actions become much more common.  It took a little getting used to.
> 
> 'Old School' to me means the guys who've been playing since back in the day and are really hard-core about it.  I'd be one of them if I hadn't played so many other games besides D&D over the years.   But there was a huge demographic of folks who played D&D back in the day, and then never touched RPGs again, when they come back, they think "I know this stuff" or "I'll start out simple with a fighter" and when they find out they don't, and it's not, it turns 'em off.  Saw it happen more than a few times.
> The really hard-core old school had already abandoned WotC over 3.0!    The ones that hadn't jumped ship to Arduin Grimoire decades before...
> 
> The transition into running 4e was surprisingly easy, and the game remained functional at high level, so you'd get someone showing up for a season or two of encounters, then running a season, then home games would spin off - they'd even go through Epic.
> 
> It's not like everyone who tried D&D has loved it, ever, but the immediate rejection, the try it once & never again reaction that I was acustomed to from 1e & 3e (and a few other games, for that matter), and still see in 5e, was just less pronounced in 4e.   It was just a more accessible version of the game.
> 
> Likewise, I was used to high level campaigns falling appart in the low double-digits, but 4e held up much better than that.  I'm still running a campaign that's at 25th, and playing in one that's at 23rd, both intend to go through to 30.  The highest I'd ever gotten a campaign to in 1e was 14th (with a standard class, there was one PC who hit 18th, but it was with a custom class that needed very little exp to level), that's also the best I've seen a 3.x campaign do, usually a lot worse.
> 
> It's not hard to identify:  4e was just functional out of the box (OK, and a year or so of errata!) and easy to run.  The game itself, was innovative (for D&D, which is damning with faint praise, indeed).  You could be creative all you _wanted_:  you just weren't forced to in order to keep your game from imploding.  You could be creative as a player just be re-skinning choices, you didn't need to rip out the guts of the mechanics and re-wire them just to make something a little off the wall.
> 
> OTOH, I noticed, after running 5e at AL for a bit, I got back into the habbit of running in the improvisational style I'd favored back in the day, and it crept right back into my 4e camaign, as well.
> 
> That general sort of thing seemed true with a lot of the 'sytle' complaints.  People would say "this doesn't 'support' my style!"  No, it just doesn't force your style.




All I can say is that I was a fan of 4E ... for a while.  Then I hit the caster that could lock completely lock down the battlefield, modules that compensated for PC abilities by taking away all their toys/abilities (every monster immune to pretty much everything), etc.  I've also done 5E up to 20th now, and while 20th level PCs can be annoying, it's just not to the same level.  Unlike 3.5 (or earlier) the game holds up okay even at higher levels, as long as you build taking PC abilities into consideration.

As far as the creativity/innovation aspect.  Since powers were so distinctly spelled out and we had conditions like "hidden", I think people eventually just stopped trying to do something outside the boxed text.  I know people complain about how critical DM rulings are in 5E, but it seems to make the flow of the game better.

But anyway, I don't think it's worth getting into much more edition wars.  I'm glad you enjoyed 4E, I just think 5E is a better game for old and new alike.  The sales seem to back that up, although there are a great many reasons for the success of the current edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> All I can say is that I was a fan of 4E ... for a while.  Then I hit the caster that could lock completely lock down the battlefield



 Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly...







> , modules that compensated for PC abilities by taking away all their toys/abilities (every monster immune to pretty much everything)



 doesn't ring a bell, which module was that?



> I've also done 5E up to 20th now, and while 20th level PCs can be annoying, it's just not to the same level.  Unlike 3.5 (or earlier) the game holds up okay even at higher levels, as long as you build taking PC abilities into consideration.



 I'll believe it if I ever get there.  
BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e & earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level.  



> As far as the creativity/innovation aspect.  Since powers were so distinctly spelled out and we had conditions like "hidden", I think people eventually just stopped trying to do something outside the boxed text.  I know people complain about how critical DM rulings are in 5E, but it seems to make the flow of the game better.



 Nod. There's different ways to approach a game.  If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work.  If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe. 

That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.'  In "playtest mode," just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly.  But, when I reached back to my old AD&D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly.  When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did).




> I just think 5E is a better game for old and new alike.



 I've played & run them both, including lots of introductory games.  The results I've seen have been pretty consistent:  4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old & returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar & nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players.  But, 1e was even more confusing & off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s.    So it works out.



> The sales seem to back that up, although there are a great many reasons for the success of the current edition.



 There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&D. 

None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game.


----------



## Mercurius

Tony Vargas said:


> I ran for Encounters...were problematic at the time.
> 
> 5e is more acceptable to longtime fans and much more welcoming to returning ones, which creates a more welcoming environment for new/casual players, even though the system itself is harder to grasp and less accessible.  It's a critcial 'balance' that 5e has struck, and one that's entirely different from (and probably incompatible with) the usual sense of game 'balance.'




What you say highlights my view that for an edition of D&D to be truly successful, it must appeal to both longtime/returning fans and casual/new fans, as two broad groups. 5E has done a good job with this, despite what you say about it being unintuitive to newbies. 

I think also there's an important point here, that many longtime gamers don't understand, what we could call "Expert's Myopia." The appeal of a game for the vast majority of casual fans, including those coming into the hobby, has little to do with rules minutiae, mechanical design, game balance, etc; all of the stuff that diehards like to argue over. It has more to do with "fluffy" elements like presentation, flavor, art, and also just cultural zeitgeist.




Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure how it's going to shake out in the long term.  5e is more acceptable than exciting, to the hard core, I think.  We have to make our own excitement.  But we're used to that.




This is why I think they could design a secondary line of "advanced D&D" books that explore possibilities beyond the core of the game for the hardcore. In fact, if I was in charge, I'd take the following approach:

*Design a "Basic D&D" game in the form of a box set, similar to what someone said above. A simplifiied/stream-lined version of the game that is complete in itself, but can also serve as stepping stone to getting into the full D&D game. I've actually wanted something like this to get my daughters into playing, feeling daunted by the idea of teaching them the full D&D game. 

*Start an "AD&D" line that is fully optional and offers any number of fun elements, which can be used as modular options.

The risk is that having three levels of the game--basic, standard, and advanced--could confuse people wanting to get into the game, but I don't think it has to work that way. The Basic box would be a one-off (with the possible exception of further published adventures or PDF conversion guides to the story arcs), and the Advanced line would be secondary and labeled differently, but fully compatible.



Tony Vargas said:


> To be fair, that approach was very successful from the mid-80s on, and only 'failed' when it was called upon to pull down MMO-like revenue as the minimum bar for success (something even the wild success of 5e hasn't done).




Well, it first failed in the mid-90s with TSR's over-reach. And then again in the latter days of 3.5 with over-saturation. Then again with 4E's failure to please many longtime players.

But I think WotC has stumbled upon a formula that is succeeding beyond all expectations and I wouldn't recommend they veer from it too much, in spite of wishing there was a bit more product. At some point, though, diminishing returns will kick in and they'll have to adjust and adapt. Who knows how this will look.



Tony Vargas said:


> Also agreed.  Essentials & 5e are actually very similar in their goals, 5e is just far enough removed from the controversey of the edition war, and much closer to the form & feel (& dysfucntion) of the classic game.  Essentials was openly meant to be evergreen and proved decidious very quickly.  5e has been more measured in presentation, but is a lot more likely to be evergreen.




I personally don't see a lot of dysfunction, but haven't played 5E a huge amount (I played a bit early on, and just joined a game a few months ago). But a portion of your perception of this could have to do with "Expert's Myopia." What you perceive as dysfunction may be because your view is far more granular and detailed than for the vast majority of people. Your expertise makes you lose sight of the fact that what bothers you doesn't bother the majority of people.


----------



## Henry

Umbran said:


> Because "need" is not objective.  Different people have different needs.
> 
> Edition wars are basically an Old-West conflict between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers.  They both use the land for similar things, but they're needs are slightly different, and mutually exclusive.




...And the sad thing is, they can’t even have a proper gunfight to resolve it because their stats and combat rules don’t mesh, so they just keep arguing back and forth. ;-)

As long as D&D keeps having “best year evers”, and the “new player acquisition engine stays running”, to recall a phrase from Mike Mearls at a round table, then I don’t see a 6e or 5e on the horizon for years at least.


----------



## Ratskinner

I gotta think the only relevant "need" for a new edition will be if sales start to flag, and I see no signs of that. WotC seems to be shepherding that part of this edition carefully. Lessons learned, I guess. At some point, sure. Even at this slow and careful release schedule, cruft will eventually build up. Maybe a round of personnel changes will accelerate it at some point, but who knows.

I don't see the new Pathfinder edition as being a real competitor, either. I don't think its a bad thing or anything, but I don't think its going to find a new audience, or splinter the 5e audience like Pathfinder 1 did to the 3e audience.

I suppose there is the theoretical possibility that the tabletop rpg audience's desires will radically shift, or some new tech will render D&D style rules irrelevant...but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one. I think I'd be one to be in that vanguard...but I have been for near 20 years now. If stuff like the Apocalypse Engine and other "Indie" designs haven't done it...I'm not sure what would. (Not that that's going to keep me from trying all sorts of "weird" rpg games, mind you.)

IMO.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, that was 'updated' away fairly quickly... doesn't ring a bell, which module was that?
> 
> I'll believe it if I ever get there.
> BA does seem like it should help keep things on an even keel, numerically, just like treadmill did (and 3e & earlier very much didn't), but aside from that, it's very much like the other eds that broke down at high level.
> 
> Nod. There's different ways to approach a game.  If you approach 5e a certain way, it doesn't work.  If you approach 4e that same way, it does work just fine, but you could concievably get the effect you describe.
> 
> That's the thing I noticed when after playtesting for a while, I started running 5e 'for real.'  In "playtest mode," just torture-testing the rules and letting bad things happen when the rules said so, 5e, even the finished product, could be pretty ugly.  But, when I reached back to my old AD&D bag of tricks (no, not the one you pull random animals out of), I got 5e games that went swimmingly.  When I then used those same techniques in 4e, they also worked nicely - maybe they weren't necessary, but they were still fun, for me (I'm not sure my players noticed or would have appreciated it if they did).
> 
> 
> I've played & run them both, including lots of introductory games.  The results I've seen have been pretty consistent:  4e was more accessible to genuinely-new players but downright toxic to some old & returning players; 5e is much more acceptable the hard-core, familiar & nostalgic for returning players, and unintuitive (to try to put it nicely) to new/casual players.  But, 1e was even more confusing & off-putting to new players, and it was a huge fad in the 80s.    So it works out.
> 
> There were probably many reasons for the market failure of 4e (one of them being a minimum revenue goal for 'success' that 5e hasn't met, either, but, fortunatley, no longer needs to), and for the current stunning come-back of D&D.
> 
> None of them have anything, directly, to do with the relative merits of either as a game.




The mods I was referring to were living campaign specific.  But I also had PC wizards shut down combats even after the errata, so not sure what you're talking about.  Still somewhat possible in 5E at a high enough level of course.

As far as newbies, I've started up a couple of groups now, the newbies don't have a problem with 5E.

But I don't know.  They were different games.  While 4E had it's merits, every character had supernatural abilities that were spelled out in detail which seemed to limit thinking outside the box.  Monsters were just a pile of stats with no flavor or description. I remember asking our DM for one of my first games what the monster was and he just shrugged and could give me no description because there was none.  By trying to make everyone have similar power levels, everyone became generic.

All I can say is that as time went on I saw more and more people that were going to give up on 4E and go on to something else.  New people and old just kind of burned out on it after a while with only a small minority remaining enthusiastic until the end.  You seem to be one of those minority that stuck with it and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## JediSoth

Personally, I have no desire for a sixth edition of D&D at this time. I'm happy with the game the way it is and its current pace of development. 5E currently hits a sweet spot for me.

In contrast, I was ready for a new edition when 4E was announced. Likewise, I was excited for 3E when it was announced. I met 5E with great skepticism because I was never happy with 4E, so I did not have high hopes that another edition would be any better for me, my group, and our play style. In fact, I was looking for an alternative fantasy RPG to scratch that itch when I decided to try 5E using the free Basic rules they released. I was surprised and thrilled to find that I LIKED it, and even happier when my group all decided they liked it enough to play it again.

There's still a lot I want to do with 5E. It will be years before I'm finished with it (at the pace we game).


----------



## Jester David

It's funny. Someone mentioned the success of WotC's 5e release in the long term. But we're kinda approaching "the long term" already. 
By this point in 3e's lifespan, we'd had 3.5 for a year. And by this point in 4e... we had 5e. 

Ten years seems to be the record. Pathfinder is going to *just* hit it, and only by overlapping with Pathfinder 2. It'll be interesting to see if 5e can keep going past 2024 in decent shape.



MNblockhead said:


> With all the other systems out there that I wish I had to try, if I get tired of 5e, I would likely just move to a completely new system. I don't think a new edition would bring me back. That's how it was with 1e for me. I was heavily into 1e and then branched out into other other systems: Gama World, Star Frontiers, Warhammer, etc.  When 2e came out, it wasn't compelling enough for me to buy a whole new set of books.
> 
> Of course, now I have so little time to play that it will take a longer time for me to tire of 5e and I already have more material than I have time to go through it. There would be no reason for me to buy a whole new edition.
> 
> But who knows, maybe when I retire in 15-20 years, I'll have come full circle back to D&D and ready to become excited over a new edition again.




Plus, after taking a break from 5e, you might also come back.
Which is the dream for WotC. The first wave of people burn out after 2-4 years but new players keep coming. By the time the second wave is burning out, the first wave is coming back. Which creates a sustainable long term audience not built entirely on growth.


----------



## Sacrosanct

A slower release schedule certainly is extending the lifespan of 5e.  Hard to believe it's been 6 years now since the first playtest came out.  And from what I can tell, 5e is still going strong and isn't wavering or starting to decline.  AD&D was out from 79 (when all 3 books were available) to 1989.  Will 5e make it to 2024, 10 years after official release?  Certainly looks like it.  We'd typically hear talk about 6e 2 years before official release, so when we hear about that, that will give us a clue.

Kind of odd to think that in this day and age where turnover is faster for pretty much everything (instant information sharing), that 5e could be the longest running edition.  AD&D is my favorite edition, but I'd have to say if that happens, then 5e would have to be considered the best edition of D&D from a more objective standpoint. It seems like yesterday when we were playing playtest material in 2012.  Another 6 years from now doesn't seem that far away.  Heck, The Big Lebowski came out 20 years ago....


----------



## Les Moore

I would be expecting a "retro resurgence", personally. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see Hasbrah try to cash in on the nostalgia of the older segment of the market.
We already have 5 editions to choose from.  Wouldn't be surprised to see them reprint and re-package some of the 1E stuff.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Les Moore said:


> I would be expecting a "retro resurgence", personally. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see Hasbrah try to cash in on the nostalgia of the older segment of the market.
> We already have 5 editions to choose from.  Wouldn't be surprised to see them reprint and re-package some of the 1E stuff.




They already did.


----------



## Halivar

Les Moore said:


> I would be expecting a "retro resurgence", personally. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see Hasbrah try to cash in on the nostalgia of the older segment of the market.
> We already have 5 editions to choose from.  Wouldn't be surprised to see them reprint and re-package some of the 1E stuff.



They did that just a few short years ago. PHB, DMG, MM, and UA. They had lovely gilt edges.

EDIT: In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it was the success of those reprints that precipitated the retro-friendliness of 5E.


----------



## Les Moore

THOSE BAXTERS! They should have sent me a letter! WHAT's WRONG with them?


----------



## Halivar

Les Moore said:


> THOSE BAXTERS! They should have sent me a letter! WHAT's WRONG with them?



It's not too late to get it: https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook/dp/0786962437


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> As far as newbies, I've started up a couple of groups now, the newbies don't have a problem with 5E.



 I have found 5e works better for new players if you have a mix of experienced/returning & new players at the table, as well as an experienced DM.  It's like an immersive language class (or fraternity hazing) at that point.    That's part of the brilliance of the 5e design & presentation, it's acceptable enough to us old-timers that we can get enthused about running it in the classic style, and new players, especially returning ones or those caught up in the come-back pick up on that enthusiasm, it can draw them in and get them past the unintuitive/frustrating/dissapointing bits, sometimes you get a genuinely-new player who isn't as interested in the game as returning fad who is put off by the attitude, but mostly it works very well.

That's in contrast to 4e, which an all-new-to-the-hobby group, either with an experienced DM or  with just one of them DMing at random, could get into surprisingly easily, because it was less unintuitive, clearer & more consistat, and particularly because it did put so little burden on the DM.  

I've had whole tables of new players at once - even using pregens, the ramp up with most RPGs is daunting.  4e is one of the less daunting ones, the least so for an ed of D&D, which isn't saying a lot - there could easily be much more new-player-friendly introductory RPGs, but the issue is that new players rarely come looking to try 'an RPG,' because the only one they'll've heard of is likely D&D...



> While 4E had it's merits, every character had supernatural abilities that were spelled out in detail which seemed to limit thinking outside the box.



 You are mistaken.  All martial classes prior to essentials had no supernatural powers, at all.  Even post-Essentials, only the Ranger, Berserker & Skald mixed martial and supernatural powers - but you'd stopped playing by then, so wouldn't have been exposed to them.

It's also odd that you'd point out supernatural powers spelled out in detail as an issue, when every edition of D&D has features spells that are presented in just that sort of way - and 5e has gone so far as to give every class at least some access to spells.

I understand you didn't play long and it's been a while, but thoses are some profound misaprehensions to be laboring under.  



> By trying to make everyone have similar power levels, everyone became generic.



  I though you said you had played the game.  The breadth & depth of 4e build choices was rivaled only by 3.x, and the fact they were better balanced only meant more of those choices were genuinely viable, and thus available in the practical sense.  Nothing remotely generic going on, there.  You could make a case for all characters of any given class back in 1e being 'generic,' of course, but since 2e started introducing options like Kits, the game has moved steadily away from that.  Even 5e, as much as it consciously evokes the classic game, has not turned the clock back very far on that.



> The mods I was referring to were living campaign specific. But I also had PC wizards shut down combats even after the errata, so not sure what you're talking about.



 Can't say I ever played the living mods - I heard they got better, ironically, after WotC cut 'em off.   

The lockdown builds of early 4e depended on several items & tricks that were eratta'd away that had allowed wizards (mostly, because they had to hardest control) to cheese up high save penalties that could last the whole (one-sided) encounter, those builds also exploited the odd item to re-use the same daily, such as Sleep.  Updates shut them down, the save penalties were errata'd to apply only to the first save, the re-using dailies tricks were nerfed.  

But, really, even at it's worst, the capacity of a 4e wizard to just 'shut down' a combat (they still needed their allies to step in and deliver the beat-down or deal with anything else that showed up), didn't compare to the 3.x Tier 1 class's ability to just push an "I win" button and take the whole encounter, by themselves.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> ...a bunch of stuff on why Tony likes 4E.  I'd just use a mention but never have figured out how to do that with people with spaces in their name...




I simply fundamentally disagree with most of what you're saying.  Which is an awesome things about opinions, we can just agree to disagree.  In my experience 5-10% of players preferred 4E.  You sound like one of them which is fine.

I'll let the fact that they felt compelled to come out with a new edition speak for itself.  I'm tired of edition wars.  As far as I'm concerned, 5E won.   .


----------



## Satyrn

Doesn't it just work? Sorry for the pointless notification, @_*Tony Vargas*_.

I just typed his name after the @.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> I simply fundamentally disagree with most of what you're saying.  Which is an awesome things about opinions, we can just agree to disagree.  In my experience 5-10% of players preferred 4E.  You sound like one of them which is fine.



 Your experience is clearly with folks who came to 4e from other editions to prefer.  And I'm not surprised by it.  4e was not easy for fans of 3e or earlier eds to wrap their heads around, let alone like.  It killed too many sacred cows, it made the game better in two many ways that undercut existing ways of leveraging the system.  

IMX, and I have no small amount of it, though, genuinely new players took to it better than any other edition.  5e is not the worst in that regard, but the best ways to bring new players into it are by immersing them in a table of mostly-experienced players, or by outright concealing the system from them as much as possible and bringing them into it by degrees, the very old-school Gygaxian philosophy of the DM always needing to have greater mastery of the rules to maintain an air of mystery.  It works on a small minority of new players, but it works /really/ well.  Almost like indocrinating them into a grognard religion.  



> I'm tired of edition wars. As far as I'm concerned, 5E won.



 Oh, I don't disagree that 4e lost the edition war in a big way (though 3e didn't exactly win the way it's adherents had hoped, either).  5e shows a clear adherence to the most traditionalist of the edition warriors' agendas - and it happend to work well enough in the current come-back market.

But, if you really are tired of it, why keep attacking the dead edition? 4e's no threat to you, anymore.  There's no need to keep warring against it.


----------



## Oofta

Satyrn said:


> Doesn't it just work? Sorry for the pointless notification, @_*Tony Vargas*_.
> 
> I just typed his name after the @.




Huh.  When I type @_*Tony Vargas*_, and do a preview it doesn't show...maybe when I submit?

EDIT: Apparently that does work.  I learned something new today, does that mean I can go home?


----------



## Satyrn

Oofta said:


> Huh.  When I type @_*Tony Vargas*_, and do a preview it doesn't show...maybe when I submit?




Ah. I rarely ever prebiew my posts.

(And I'm sorely tempted to jokingly tag Tony in every single one our posts regarding this sidebar)


----------



## ad_hoc

Oofta said:


> I simply fundamentally disagree with most of what you're saying.  Which is an awesome things about opinions, we can just agree to disagree.  In my experience 5-10% of players preferred 4E.  You sound like one of them which is fine.
> 
> I'll let the fact that they felt compelled to come out with a new edition speak for itself.  I'm tired of edition wars.  As far as I'm concerned, 5E won.   .




I agree.

I don't think it will be long until 5e outsells all other editions combined. Well for core books anyway. Might need a few more supplements to catch up to that.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Your experience is clearly with folks who came to 4e from other editions to prefer.  And I'm not surprised by it.  4e was not easy for fans of 3e or earlier eds to wrap their heads around, let alone like.  It killed too many sacred cows, it made the game better in two many ways that undercut existing ways of leveraging the system.
> 
> IMX, and I have no small amount of it, though, genuinely new players took to it better than any other edition.  5e is not the worst in that regard, but the best ways to bring new players into it are by immersing them in a table of mostly-experienced players, or by outright concealing the system from them as much as possible and bringing them into it by degrees, the very old-school Gygaxian philosophy of the DM always needing to have greater mastery of the rules to maintain an air of mystery.  It works on a small minority of new players, but it works /really/ well.  Almost like indocrinating them into a grognard religion.
> 
> Oh, I don't disagree that 4e lost the edition war in a big way (though 3e didn't exactly win the way it's adherents had hoped, either).  5e shows a clear adherence to the most traditionalist of the edition warriors' agendas - and it happend to work well enough in the current come-back market.
> 
> But, if you really are tired of it, why keep attacking the dead edition? 4e's no threat to you, anymore.  There's no need to keep warring against it.




I played with people that were new to D&D, people that had been playing since the brown box set and everywhere in between.

I'm just responding to you because you state certain things as facts that I disagree with about 4E.  In addition you make broad assumptions like "Your experience is clearly with folks who came to 4e from other editions to prefer." It's not only untrue, but how the heck would you know?

As far as new people finding it easier, your experience is simply different than mine. I DMed at least a couple of public sessions per month, many with newbies for the lifetime of 4E in addition to a home campaign.

I simply disagree with much of what you state about 4E.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> I'm just responding to you because you state certain things as facts that I disagree with about 4E.  In addition you make broad assumptions like "Your experience is clearly with folks who came to 4e from other editions to prefer." It's not only untrue, but how the heck would you know?



 Certain things that you said were contrary to the actual facts, so yeah, I corrected your mistatements.  They're not unusual misaprehensions, thanks to the edition war, but being sick of them and of correcting them doesn't make them any less untrue.  

It's not hard to surmise from the experiences you were relating that you were not dealing with whole tables of new players being introduced to D&D for the first time with 4e, but with mixed tables.  The pattern's familiar enough.  Mixed tables are a great introduction to 5e (or the classic eds it resembles, for that matter), because the preconceptions of the experienced players match the system, and help guide the new players through it's intricicies and unintuitive elements.  4e was readily accessible to new players, more so than other eds, but a mixed table could outright sabotage that.  Not always metaphorically.



> As far as new people finding it easier, your experience is simply different than mine. I DMed at least a couple of public sessions per month, many with newbies for the lifetime of 4E in addition to a home campaign.



Encounters.  Weekly, plus conventions.  I'd have a whole-new-player table for a season, and see them all come back the next season, some of them run the season after that.  The accessibility of 4e to new players surprised me, and was very real.  Though, I'll admit, it also seemed to be in isolation from the edition war.  The FLGS in question didn't much cater to PF (there was another across town that did, almost like different churches for different religions), and the clientel was overwhelmingly younger/newer players, and I rarely heard of any of them visiting forums or the like.  

That your report of your experiences differs doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Satyrn said:


> (And I'm sorely tempted to jokingly tag Tony in every single one our posts regarding this sidebar)



 You won't hurt my feelings.


----------



## Satyrn

Tony Vargas said:


> You won't hurt my feelings.




Sure,  but at some point the mods are gonna call it harassment.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Satyrn said:


> Sure,  but at some point the mods are gonna call it harassment.



 LoL. We're not supposed to discuss moderation!


----------



## Salthorae

The bigger driver of a new edition or effort to revitalize WotC sales will probably be how well Paizo does with their 2nd edition release and how that does or does not impact WotC sales. 

I have talked to a few people who are going to jump ship when Pathfinder 2 is released. If it kills 5e sales they may move their timeline up on a new edition again, like they did with 5e. 4e wasn’t in the wild very long comparatively before we hear about D&D Next play tests. Partly because the edition itself drove many people to Paizo’s 3.75 outputs. 

If their 2e pulls a ton of interest and sales it MAY push the timeline on a new D&D line up. 

I don’t want that to happen, i enjoy 5e still. The simplicity is refreshing after a decade of morass of complexity 3.x across WotC & Paizo lines. But it could...


----------



## BookBarbarian

Salthorae said:


> The bigger driver of a new edition or effort to revitalize WotC sales will probably be how well Paizo does with their 2nd edition release and how that does or does not impact WotC sales.
> 
> I have talked to a few people who are going to jump ship when Pathfinder 2 is released. If it kills 5e sales they may move their timeline up on a new edition again, like they did with 5e. 4e wasn’t in the wild very long comparatively before we hear about D&D Next play tests. Partly because the edition itself drove many people to Paizo’s 3.75 outputs.
> 
> If their 2e pulls a ton of interest and sales it MAY push the timeline on a new D&D line up.
> 
> I don’t want that to happen, i enjoy 5e still. The simplicity is refreshing after a decade of morass of complexity 3.x across WotC & Paizo lines. But it could...




These days I think that will depend on how widely adopted PF2 is among popular game streams. Those shows are leading a lot of new players into the hobby.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Salthorae said:


> The bigger driver of a new edition or effort to revitalize WotC sales will probably be how well Paizo does with their 2nd edition release and how that does or does not impact WotC sales.



 I suspect the impact will be negligible.  5e has already sold to the established fanbase, it's ongoing sales are more to new & returning players drawn to the D&D name.  PF2 might pull away a few hard-core 3.x/PF fans who'd been amusing themselves with 5e while waiting for it, but it's not going to have any effect on the stream of incoming new/returning players.  The come-back is D&D's to lose it's hold on, and WotC is showning no sign of loosening it's grip.



> I have talked to a few people who are going to jump ship when Pathfinder 2 is released. If it kills 5e sales they may move their timeline up on a new edition again, like they did with 5e.



 PF had the unprecedented advantage of being de-facto D&D at a time when D&D, itself, was very pointedly being not-D&D.  That's no longer the case, 5e is all-in, true-blue, D&D the way D&D oughta be.  PF2 - which, honestly, is showing every sign of being /better/ than 5e even tried to be, but, as such, "less D&D" than 5e is - has no chance of rivaling that.


----------



## Oofta

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION],

You think 4E was better for new players, I don't.  In my experience it may have been easier for the first few levels, but unless you used the online tool it became overwhelming.  In my experience at mid-to-high level play 4E devolved into an unholy mess of conditions, interrupts and people trying to parse the wording of their powers like it was computer code.

You also make a lot of assumptions and statements about my motivation, background, who I played with or not, that "old school" players rejected 4E simply because it was different.  You keep stating things as facts that are nothing more than your opinion.

It's insulting not only to me, but to everyone who didn't like 4E to say that the reason people didn't like 4E was because we couldn't get used to change.  You liked the game.  Good for you.  I enjoyed it for quite a while myself but, like most people I played with, eventually burned out on it.


----------



## Salthorae

odd double post, sorry!


----------



## Morrus

Salthorae said:


> The bigger driver of a new edition or effort to revitalize WotC sales will probably be how well Paizo does with their 2nd edition release and how that does or does not impact WotC sales.
> 
> I have talked to a few people who are going to jump ship when Pathfinder 2 is released. If it kills 5e sales they may move their timeline up on a new edition again, like they did with 5e. 4e wasn’t in the wild very long comparatively before we hear about D&D Next play tests. Partly because the edition itself drove many people to Paizo’s 3.75 outputs.
> 
> If their 2e pulls a ton of interest and sales it MAY push the timeline on a new D&D line up.
> 
> I don’t want that to happen, i enjoy 5e still. The simplicity is refreshing after a decade of morass of complexity 3.x across WotC & Paizo lines. But it could...




So important, you had to say it twice!


----------



## Salthorae

Morrus said:


> So important, you had to say it twice!




Yeah... very weird Tapatalk issue. It posted and then when I unlocked my phone again, it re-posted. I’ll delete or edit one to “double post”


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> You think 4E was better for new players, I don't.  In my experience it may have been easier for the first few levels, but unless you used the online tool it became overwhelming.



 That's a very different qualifier.  When I say that 4e was more accessible to the new player, of course that mostly meant at 1st level, where 4e was at it's "lightest" and 5e has some issues with unexpected lethality, and even the basic-pdf casters have some substantial complexity.  Not only that, but when introducing new players, be it 4e or 5e (or prior eds), I'll always use pregens.  
I was involved in Encounters from the 2nd season on, so that was level 1-4 over & over. 

There's no question the DDI tools, balky as they were, also made the game that much easier for those who used them, and that was part of the design intent.  The groups that formed around encounters tables and cleaved off to form home games typically shared a DDI account...
...frankly, I think sometimes more than one group had shared a single DDI...

My old group did without the tools and ran through to Paragon level without undue hardship (we did hit 'the wall' the first time into paragon), but we were all experienced.  



> In my experience at mid-to-high level play 4E devolved into an unholy mess of conditions, interrupts and people trying to parse the wording of their powers like it was computer code.



 Except for the 'unholy mess' that's not far wrong.  4e had a very clear, almost technical-manual presentation, so it was easy to 'parse' a power right at the table and figure out what it did.  Very little of the back-and-forth rules debates that were common in 3.x and punted to DM fiat before that.  While it's easy to spin that negatively (or even honestly experience it negatively, in contrast to long familiarity with the game's more quixotic older-ed rules), it's still a positive (clarity) in making the system that much easier to learn for new players, and that much easier to run, since you don't have to review every PC ability in advance.  The experience of playing through the heroic levels is pretty smooth, that way.  

Paragon, as I've said, does feel like a wall when you first hit it, but it passed quickly, IMX.

Though, contrary to my own opinion on Paragon, I did have success with new players playing 16th level pregens at a convention.  I guess there's always an exception.



> You also make a lot of assumptions and statements about my motivation, background, who I played with or not



 Based only upon what you have said, yourself.  I can't base assumptions about you on anything else.



> It's insulting not only to me, but to everyone who didn't like 4E to say that the reason people didn't like 4E was because we couldn't get used to change.



  Not taking to changes in something you've enjoyed for a long time is hardly unusual and not some terrible fault.  OTOH, misrepresenting those changes is an issue.


----------



## Salthorae

I have honestly not looked at and am not really interested in the PF2 offerings so sorry to say I can't compare, but I agree with [MENTION=6802553]BookBarbarian[/MENTION] what streams (if any) pick it up will drive a lot of sales their way. I hadn't thought about it, but it's true.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> That's a very different qualifier.  When I say that 4e was more accessible to the new player, of course that mostly meant at 1st level, where 4e was at it's "lightest" and 5e has some issues with unexpected lethality, and even the basic-pdf casters have some substantial complexity.  Not only that, but when introducing new players, be it 4e or 5e (or prior eds), I'll always use pregens.
> I was involved in Encounters from the 2nd season on, so that was level 1-4 over & over.




If you primarily played/DMed level 4 or less you would have a different perspective than I do.  I'm concerned about long term retention, not just intro levels.  

However, I also haven't seen issues with new people learning 5E whether there are people to help them or not.  I've introduced several newbies now and they had no problems picking up the game.   It's certainly a lower bar than 3.5.



Tony Vargas said:


> ...4e had a very clear, almost technical-manual presentation, so it was easy to 'parse' a power right at the table and figure out what it did.  Very little of the back-and-forth rules debates that were common in 3.x and punted to DM fiat before that.  While it's easy to spin that negatively, it's still a positive in making the system that much easier to learn.  The experience of playing through the heroic levels is pretty smooth, that way.




You saw that aspect of 4E in a more positive light than I did.  In my experience having detailed powers with no common foundation made things more difficult, both as a player and a DM.  I don't know how many times we had to stop the game and pause for a few minutes while the DM read through the power trying to understand what it did.  Complexity, even if well explained, can still be detrimental to a game.

If you consider a game who's turns can take an hour or more (I think our record was an hour and a half) at higher levels to be "smooth" all I can say is that we have a different definition for that word.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> If you primarily played/DMed level 4 or less you would have a different perspective than I do.  I'm concerned about long term retention, not just intro levels.



   I've played & run campaigns going from Heroic through Epic. But, I primarily introduced _new players to 4e_ at Encounters, which ran from 1st, up to 4th level by the end of the season.  I've only rarely had occassion to introduce a new player to the game at higher levels (Paragon once or twice), and don't consider it typical.  Nor, by the time you hit Paragon from 1st, are you really 'new' anymore.   You're probably ready to run 4e well before that point, if you're at all enclined.



> However, I also haven't seen issues with new people learning 5E whether there are people to help them or not.  I've introduced several newbies now and they had no problems picking up the game.   It's certainly a lower bar than 3.5.[/qoute] 5e is not as bad (or good) as 3.5 along a number of dimensions, sure, 3.5 was a high-water mark in a lot of ways.
> 
> I have seen new players come up hard against playing the character they want to - wanting to play a fighter type and being disapointed in how fast they died, or wanting to play a wizard and being unable to cope with the neo-Vancian magic sub-system (heck neo-Vancian has been the one sticking point for a few long-time & returning players, too).  I've also seen plenty of players take to it very well with a little help.  But, the issues of new players are minor compared to the duck-to-water way returning players take to 5e.  It's a thing of beauty, really.  WotC has gotten the balance of accessibilty to the new vs acceptablity to the old just about as right as could be hoped, and at just the right time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saw that aspect of 4E in a more positive light than I did.  In my experience having detailed powers with no common foundation made things more difficult, both as a player and a DM.  I don't know how many times we had to stop the game and pause for a few minutes while the DM read through the power trying to understand what it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No common foundation?"  Not sure what that means.
> 
> Powers were very plainly presented, I've seen players go nuts trying to figure out what a power 'was supposed to do,' ignoring the clear, simple text that said exactly what it did the whole time.  Mostly the more serious 3.5 types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complexity, even if well explained, can still be detrimental to a game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can, but it's unavoidable in an RPG - even RPGs that keep their systems very short in terms of page count, load a lot of complexity on the GM or players.  The idea that 4e is any more complex than other eds is off, too.  It's actually less complex (clearer & more consistent) in structure & play.  It's just much less familiar, and if D&D has been second nature to you for years or decades, you become inured to it's complexities - so a new D&D like 5e that hasn't changed them much, _benefits from that_ as the accustomed complexities fly under the radar, while a radically different one like 4e pushes all the complexity it does have right in your face, like a durian-cream pie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider a game who's turns can take an hour or more (I think our record was an hour and a half) at higher levels to be "smooth" all I can say is that we have a different definition for that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IMX, turns took as long or longer in 3.5, and more of that was dealing with rules issues or one player monopolizing the DM's time, while in 4e the time was actual play that engaged more of the table.  A turn cycle could take a while (never an hour, mind you - whole, big level+ set-piece combats take an hour or two), and one 3.5-veteran powergamer who was in my campaign for a while notoriously took a couple of "15 min turns" when he busted out summons with his Wizard(Witch) Vile Scholar build, but that's about as bad as it ever got.
> 
> Really, the speed issue is more about perception, and who's taking the time.  In 4e, every character can take a pretty substantial turn if they spend an Action Point or use a more interesting power.  In other eds, it's casters who eat up time on resolving high-impact/complex spells (OK, and rules debate's and mapping, Joel, mapping..*).  The 4e phenomenon can lead to a spiral in which players who have waited, disengaged, a little too long for their turn decide to take a really /involved/ turn to make up for it, which of course, means it's that much longer for the next guy... the solution I found to that issue was engagement.  Ironically, that could mean encouraging off-turn actions and abilities that benefited other PCs, because they keep the player with them focused on the action when it's not his turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[sblock] off topic but a couple of the players in our old 3.x campaign got so, so sick of mapping (which the DM & I were just happily wiling away the hours with, in loving detail, because old-school), that he essentially invented the skill challenge about 6 years early, and, eventually, created the most-beloved NPC of any campaign I've ever encountered:  Gimble the Gnomish Master Cartographer (Thank you, Expert NPC class!).  When Gimble was eaten by a purple worm, we went ballistic on the thing, cut his corpse out of it, and rushed to nearest high level priest to have him raised (our resident dwarf cleric made the mistake of a dipping a level of fighter, or we might not even any of us been 9th yet, but for whatever reason we couldn't do it ourselves), no debate over how far behind the wealth/level curve we were already, we ponied up rather than lose our GPS.  [/sblock]
Click to expand...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Oofta said:


> [MENTION=996]
> 
> It's insulting not only to me, but to everyone who didn't like 4E to say that the reason people didn't like 4E was because we couldn't get used to change. .




I can't see Tony's post, but if he said that, then it makes no sense.  It's like saying the reason people who didn't like New Coke is because they couldn't handle change, or any other number of revisions that flopped.  It's a personal preference thing, and by that very nature, you cannot say the reason product failed is because of one disparaging reason of people who didn't like it.  It reeks of elitism, like those people who say you're not a REAL admirer of literature unless you are a fan of Vonnegut.


----------



## Tony Vargas

_This will be my third attempt at a reply, BTW... if it's terse, it's just frustration with technology..._



Mercurius said:


> What you say highlights my view that for an edition of D&D to be truly successful, it must appeal to both longtime/returning fans and casual/new fans, as two broad groups. 5E has done a good job with this, despite what you say about it being unintuitive to newbies.



That's a major part of it, IMHO.  It must strike the balance between being acceptable to the old gaurd and accessible to the new.  5e moved back from the level of accessibility 4e presented quite a lot, to get to the level of acceptabilty required (maybe erred on that side more than a bit). 



> I think also there's an important point here, that many longtime gamers don't understand, what we could call "Expert's Myopia."



 I feel like there is a lot of that going on.  We get so familiar with one game that we become accustomed to how it does things, cope with it's issues automatically, and any difference from it stands out.



> The appeal of a game for the vast majority of casual fans, including those coming into the hobby, has little to do with rules minutiae, mechanical design, game balance, etc; all of the stuff that diehards like to argue over. It has more to do with "fluffy" elements like presentation, flavor, art, and also just cultural zeitgeist.



 'Appeal' is very much that 'culture zietgiest' (there's a come-back in full swing, instead of an edition war, for instance) and shelf presence (the core books are very clearly marked, the supplements are more obscure).  

What's between the covers, whether a casual player is aware of it in the kind of hideous detail we discuss it (heaven help him) or not, OTOH, does indirectly impact their play experience, making the game fun or frustrating, exciting or disapointing, engaging or boring.  5e, of course, has returned intentionally to the 1e answer to those potential problems:  load responsibility for the play experience entirely on the DM.  It's called 'Empowerment,' but, with tons of long-time & returning DMs finding 5e quite 'acceptable,' and new DMs getting trained up over time, it's working out quite well.



> This is why I think they could design a secondary line of "advanced D&D" books that explore possibilities beyond the core of the game for the hardcore.



 Honestly, I think that would be horrible.  It'd shatter the relatively unified, clear brand-image/shelf-presence (3 core books, only one clearly for a 'Player') that keeps the game from being too intimidating before a potential new player has even tried it.

The variation on that which could work would be a 3pp coming out with a game that's built up on 5e using the SRD, as a sort of 'advanced' version - with neither the D&D nor the WotC logos to confuse the potential new players in the mainstream.

Paizo could've gone there with PF2.  



> I personally don't see a lot of dysfunction, but haven't played 5E a huge amount (I played a bit early on, and just joined a game a few months ago). But a portion of your perception of this could have to do with "Expert's Myopia."



 That 'Expert's Myopia" is exactly why you don't see the dysfunction!   Filler fights, time pressure, gotchyas, anti-magic zones, wrapping campaigns by 15th level?  It's nothing to do with imposing balance & payability, it's just how we've always played the game, it's D&D's own self-defined 'genre.'  



_...and, quick, post before it glitches again..._

_... thank Kibo...it finally worked..._


Oh, and: 



Mercurius said:


> Your expertise makes you lose sight of the fact that what bothers you doesn't bother the majority of people.



 Here's the thing:  thanks to my expertise, it doesn't bother me.  I can have a blast running 5e, because I have the 'mad skillz' from running AD&D all those years.


----------



## Les Moore

Halivar said:


> It's not too late to get it: https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook/dp/0786962437




I  was looking for reprints of the 1e Pamphlets. You know what they're getting for an original box, complete ? AD&D, I still have from the 80s.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Les Moore said:


> I  was looking for reprints of the 1e Pamphlets. You know what they're getting for an original box, complete ? AD&D, I still have from the 80s.




That link is just for the limited edition 1st edition PHB and that is close to the price at release in 2012, I think. When you said pamphlets, I thought you were looking for this set:

http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/original-dungeons-dragons-rpg


----------



## CapnZapp

Aebir-Toril said:


> Hmm, I think I need a more controversial title...
> 
> Do we *really* need a sixth edition?
> 
> Discuss.



No, no, and no.


----------



## Tallifer

I think that, since with the gloriously encyclopedic and open power of the contemporary internet, we all have access to and therefore the capability of running all seven editions of D&D (with varying degrees of effort required), we have no pressing need for a sixth edition. Certainly among my wide circle of roleplaying friends, we each have found a preferred edition or variation.

At the same time, 5th Edition seems to be the most unifying edition out there. My own campaign includes many diverse and happy players, but if I tried to run the same campaign in any previous edition, I would lose half my players for one reason or another.


----------



## Kaodi

If the problem is sales... why not sell new updated rulebooks that do not change the rules at all but instead change the non-rule stuff. Different covers, all new art, better explanations, text, and layouts, and generally try to make the existing product _better_? Surely that would be relatively cheap to do compared to playtesting a new book or new edition.


----------



## Arilyn

Kaodi said:


> If the problem is sales... why not sell new updated rulebooks that do not change the rules at all but instead change the non-rule stuff. Different covers, all new art, better explanations, text, and layouts, and generally try to make the existing product _better_? Surely that would be relatively cheap to do compared to playtesting a new book or new edition.




If and when sales lag, tastes change, and WOTC feels it's time to update, same rules but new art and fluff will not go over well. 

It's hard to picture right now, because 5e is so popular and well received, but eventually, players get restless, cracks in the system become more annoying, the casual players have moved on to something different, and more players than not will want an update. Not a terrible thing, otherwise, we'd have never gotten past ODnD. We may be many years off, but it'll happen.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Kaodi said:


> If the problem is sales... why not sell new updated rulebooks that do not change the rules at all but instead change the non-rule stuff. Different covers, all new art, better explanations, text, and layouts, and generally try to make the existing product _better_? Surely that would be relatively cheap to do compared to playtesting a new book or new edition.




The time to do that is when a new edition comes out, not when sales lag.  

When a new edition comes out it's all ponies and rainbows and folks will happily pick up extra covers and art because they're collectors.
When sales drop it's all torches and pitchforks because it's suddenly a cash grab.

People are strange.
KB


----------



## Tony Vargas

Kaodi said:


> If the problem is sales... why not sell new updated rulebooks that do not change the rules at all but instead change the non-rule stuff. Different covers, all new art, better explanations, text, and layouts, and generally try to make the existing product _better_? Surely that would be relatively cheap to do compared to playtesting a new book or new edition.



That's essentially what Hasbro has been doing with Monopoly for decades:  'special editions,' the rules are the same or barely different, but it's dressed up differently.

D&D could also re-publish core rules with, a different default setting. Or with emphasis on a different sub-genre (S&S or action or anime or high-fantasy instead of... er, well D&D).  
Or even all the same rules, but with some of the optional rules standard by default and some of the standard rules labeled 'optional.'  So in each case it's stilll "Really D&D" and a new player could jump in with the 'special edition' and still be playing D&D...

Something like that could be coordinated with releases in another medium.  Like if a D&D Dragonlance moview were made, a special edition of D&D could use Krynn as it's default setting.  Or when M:tG has some ginormously successful event, a special edition of D&D set in Dominia could be released for a limited time, with several different covers, sold blind/random in foil.  (OK, maybe not.)


----------



## Laurefindel

Aebir-Toril said:


> 6e? Why?




Because we're in 2030 and this edition has been running for over 15 years now. With the new mechanics introduced in Elder Scroll IX and the new possibilities of VR and holo-paper, D&D could use a refresher (not just that D&D Super-Beyond (TM) app that everyone is complaining about). And you know, it'd be nice to make a character like in Peter Jackson's Silmarillon 3. That new archetype _kinda_ does it, but it really screams for a new class really.

I mean, even Pathfinder is on its fifth edition and it gets better every time. And they're selling lots! You'd hope that D&D gets to 6e before PF right?

...right?


----------



## Satyrn

Laurefindel said:


> . . . Peter Jackson's Silmarillon 3 . . .




I can't wait for Part 4!


----------



## robus

It actually shocks me that WotC haven’t released a new Starter Set. That seems like an easy way to sell a bunch of stuff. Perhaps with an improved “How To DM” guide. Something that went along with the new Dragon Heist adventure would have been cool.


----------



## ad_hoc

robus said:


> It actually shocks me that WotC haven’t released a new Starter Set. That seems like an easy way to sell a bunch of stuff. Perhaps with an improved “How To DM” guide. Something that went along with the new Dragon Heist adventure would have been cool.





Would people buy 2 starter sets?


----------



## robus

ad_hoc said:


> Would people buy 2 starter sets?




Well some collectors would  but i certainly think the starter set could be improved a lot so a fresh one could do that whilst also giving a second choice (with a very different adventure) to people wanting to try the game out.


----------



## ad_hoc

robus said:


> Well some collectors would  but i certainly think the starter set could be improved a lot so a fresh one could do that whilst also giving a second choice (with a very different adventure) to people wanting to try the game out.




Sounds like a lot of work for WotC and giving people choice when they don't really know what they're choosing might even be detrimental. It might turn off people by making the game look too involved. Part of the release strategy is to avoid that as much as possible.


----------



## BookBarbarian

ad_hoc said:


> Would people buy 2 starter sets?




Since all the first starter set had was an adventure, premade characters, dice, and a condensed version of the rules I could see value in 1/2 to 3/4 of that for my game right now. I like adventures and dice, could easily find a use for new premades, and having a handy copy of the rules never hurts.

Oh it also had a nice box that fit my core books, which was neat. I wouldn't mind another one of those either.

I think it would work better if it wasn't called starter set. Box set would be fine.


----------



## robus

ad_hoc said:


> Sounds like a lot of work for WotC and giving people choice when they don't really know what they're choosing might even be detrimental. It might turn off people by making the game look too involved. Part of the release strategy is to avoid that as much as possible.




Sure - we can agree to disagree


----------



## Jer

robus said:


> It actually shocks me that WotC haven’t released a new Starter Set. That seems like an easy way to sell a bunch of stuff. Perhaps with an improved “How To DM” guide. Something that went along with the new Dragon Heist adventure would have been cool.




It surprises me that they haven't done a new Starter Set as well, but in a different way.

Today I was at Target picking up some stuff and of course my son wanted to look at the video games.  Across from the video games are the toys and sitting there on an endcap were dozens of D&D Starter Sets - something that hasn't been on the shelves at Target for a few years.

The Starter Set came out in summer of 2014, so it's a 4 year old product.  They're still selling Starter Sets four years later at non-specialty stores to the general public.  It's surprising, but in a good way.

I do wonder if someday we'll get the "specialty" versions of the D&D Starter Set the way that Hasbro puts out special versions of Monopoly or Risk.  I know they've tried it in the past - I've still got the Diablo II boxed set based around 2e AD&D rules.  It's tougher for D&D, I think, because you need the theme of the licensed property to mesh with the D&D theme (Diablo II was kind of a no-brainer there).  There aren't a lot of properties where that makes sense though.  And unlike those kinds of specialty versions of Risk or Monopoly, a good Starter Set should be introducing people to the broader game, not just be a way to sell more boxed sets, so it's a different kind of product.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Jer said:


> It surprises me that they haven't done a new Starter Set as well, but in a different way.
> 
> Today I was at Target picking up some stuff and of course my son wanted to look at the video games.  Across from the video games are the toys and sitting there on an endcap were dozens of D&D Starter Sets - something that hasn't been on the shelves at Target for a few years.
> 
> The Starter Set came out in summer of 2014, so it's a 4 year old product.  They're still selling Starter Sets four years later at non-specialty stores to the general public.  It's surprising, but in a good way.
> 
> I do wonder if someday we'll get the "specialty" versions of the D&D Starter Set the way that Hasbro puts out special versions of Monopoly or Risk.  I know they've tried it in the past - I've still got the Diablo II boxed set based around 2e AD&D rules.  It's tougher for D&D, I think, because you need the theme of the licensed property to mesh with the D&D theme (Diablo II was kind of a no-brainer there).  There aren't a lot of properties where that makes sense though.  And unlike those kinds of specialty versions of Risk or Monopoly, a good Starter Set should be introducing people to the broader game, not just be a way to sell more boxed sets, so it's a different kind of product.




Agreed that it’s a good sign.  Looking back at history, I bought my first red box set from the freezer section of a Foodmaster in Charlestown MA.

When the product gets in front of a general audience, the hobby wins


----------



## robus

Well one thing that springs to mind: starter sets that let people play in their favorite Magic planes. Heck James Wyatt does most of the work for free with his Planeshift stuff.


----------



## ClaytonCross

I would actually like a 5.5 when they are "done" where the "fix" issues they had, incorporate Errata and clarifications from SageAdvice into the text of the books, and consolidate similar information onto single source locations like a players handbook with all classes, subclass, races, sub-races, and feats in one book. BUT I don't want that until they are pretty much "done with 5th". They can sell it all to me one more time in that case.


----------



## Les Moore

I can't see 6E, pretty much EVER, unless they re-vamp 4E totally, and sell it exclusively, online. NO paper PHBs, Miniatures, or anything TT. We already have 5 TT
versions, enough, already.


----------



## schnee

6E won't happen for a long time.

The only thing I can possibly see happening is new printings of 5e incorporating subtle tweaks to rules and wording, as they incorporate the lessons they've learned over time with errata, different books, and sage advice.

I would really appreciate a good pass on the intersection of stealth, obscurement, magical darkness, and passive/active perception to make it a lot more clear - those require far more interpretation than I think necessary. That's one area where the border between 'rules as written' and 'space where rulings need to be made because we don't want to saddle you with hideously complex rules' is way too fuzzy, and the relative effectiveness and power level of different skills and abilities can vary way too much.


----------



## schnee

robus said:


> Sure - we can agree to disagree




Providing two choices that have differences that are unknowable to a new user is a fundamentally bad idea to anyone who does commerce as a career. So, feel free to disagree, but the people operating on Wizard's level can back it up with overwhelming amounts of experience and experimental proof. 

I could see them improving the Starter Set, based on user testing and feedback, if the numbers bear it out. But, if they ever did, they'd most likely communicate those changes to resellers, not players or customers. Potential customers wouldn't know the difference, current players won't ever use it, and obsessive collectors will find it anyway.

The only time they've called out a thing being different is with an 'evergreen' product like the DM screen. The first one received a lot of grief and (obviously) didn't sell well, so they re-did it, and added 'Reincarnated' to the name, and marketed it on all the stuff they did better this time. That meant customers that were holding off because of bad reviews of the original wouldn't avoid the new improved one. (The joy of google search and blogger reviews.)


----------



## robus

southjersey said:


> Providing two choices that have differences that are unknowable to a new user is a fundamentally bad idea to anyone who does commerce as a career. So, feel free to disagree, but the people operating on Wizard's level can back it up with overwhelming amounts of experience and experimental proof.




I don’t think I ever said anything about keeping the old set around if they did a new one, but thanks for choosing the worst interpretation of my suggestion. 

I absolutely think that a new and improved starter set would sell very well. Lots of people enjoy shorter length adventures.

And with that I’m out of this thread.


----------



## bmfrosty

Totally would love to see new starter sets.  Like yearly.

I'd love to see a 2018 starter set with a new adventure that's 1-4.  LMoP is amazing, but I think it would be easy to rotate it and include a new adventure and new box art.

That could be done every year.

I can't see reason for a 6th edition of the rules.   Maybe a 5.1 as a raft of small adjustments would be good.  I think there are a lot of small changes and clarifications out there to be made that would improve the game without requiring a full new version.  I think a lot of it would be incorporating a lot of what are home rules in to variant rules or class adjustments.  Should a dart be a monk weapon?  Should the popular critical hit variants be included in the book as variants?

My home games don't change a lot, but most of the things that they do change feel like oversights.


----------



## schnee

robus said:


> I don’t think I ever said anything about keeping the old set around if they did a new one, but thanks for choosing the worst interpretation of my suggestion.




If that's true...



robus said:


> Well some collectors would  but i certainly think the starter set could be improved a lot so a fresh one could do that *whilst also giving a second choice (with a very different adventure)* to people wanting to try the game out.




^^^ What does this mean then?


----------



## robus

southjersey said:


> If that's true...
> 
> ^^^ What does this mean then?




Ha touché!


----------



## Jester David

bmfrosty said:


> Totally would love to see new starter sets.  Like yearly.
> 
> I'd love to see a 2018 starter set with a new adventure that's 1-4.  LMoP is amazing, but I think it would be easy to rotate it and include a new adventure and new box art.
> 
> That could be done every year.



The Starter Set seems to be the poorest selling D&D product. So I doubt they’d want to make a new one regularly. And I doubt many people will buy more than one Starer Set, as half the contents only appeal to new players. 

I can see them trying to make a better one, designed with feedback from the first and taking into consideration the needs of the current generation. Perhaps a QR code linking to a how-to-play video.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Jester David said:


> . And I doubt many people will buy more than one Starer Set, .




I happen to be one of those who bought more than one lol.  One to play, and one to keep in original condition.  I did the same thing with Holmes Basic back in the day.  It's interesting to see both side by side.  The OG compared to the new.


----------



## cmad1977

I’d absolutely buy a 2nd... and 3rd... and 4th starter set if it came with different adventures.


I don’t think that’s necessarily a great business plan for WoTC though.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Jester David said:


> The Starter Set seems to be the poorest selling D&D product. So I doubt they’d want to make a new one regularly. And I doubt many people will buy more than one Starer Set, as half the contents only appeal to new players.
> 
> I can see them trying to make a better one, designed with feedback from the first and taking into consideration the needs of the current generation. Perhaps a QR code linking to a how-to-play video.




The point of the starter set from a marketing perspective is to have a version of the game that can sit in non-book store focused retail and capture the market that would normally never be exposed to the brand.    While it's definitely aimed at new players, its value is advertising before conversion (assuming that the units sit on a shelf and some don't actually get sold).

So creating new art for the box is occasionally going to be a good idea, and creating art specifically for certain outlets to maximize visibility (Target is mostly red and endcap space benefits from contrast) might be a good idea depending on specific metrics and location.

Do I think WoTC does this sort of analysis to increase sales.  No.  Do I think ASMs at big box retail do it?  Yes.  

However, the shift of sales from conventional retail to online and specialty sellers makes the liklihood of new versions of box sets very low.

On the matter of new content in each box set: 

If the content amounted to three pages of text that could set up a map, an antagonist and some flavor for things, then I'd think it was a good idea.  Better still, come up with three or four related adventures, label which one is in the box and put it out there.  If the short adventures can be played on their own or as part of the line of four, and each is only 3-5 pages in length with some advice text for the novice DM, you'd sell more stuff.

I know that I can blow through a 3-5 page module in terms of writing in a day.  Wouldn't take much to add some editing on the back end and give yourself something to advance sales.  Absolutely no one is expecting Tomb of Annihilation in the Starter Set.


----------



## schnee

robus said:


> Ha touché!




Regardless of sales opinions, I'm in total agreement with you that the Beginner's Set can and should be thoroughly vetted and updated. 

They've improved their ways of writing adventures and rulebooks over times, it would be silly to assume that the set is still perfect now. I've seen a ton of complaints about it online, so you're definitely not the only one.


----------



## bmfrosty

Kobold Boots said:


> On the matter of new content in each box set:
> 
> If the content amounted to three pages of text that could set up a map, an antagonist and some flavor for things, then I'd think it was a good idea.  Better still, come up with three or four related adventures, label which one is in the box and put it out there.  If the short adventures can be played on their own or as part of the line of four, and each is only 3-5 pages in length with some advice text for the novice DM, you'd sell more stuff.
> 
> I know that I can blow through a 3-5 page module in terms of writing in a day.  Wouldn't take much to add some editing on the back end and give yourself something to advance sales.  Absolutely no one is expecting Tomb of Annihilation in the Starter Set.




I'm not sure the difference between what you're talking about and what's in the starter set already.

There's an adventure that's the equivalent of 4 modules.

1) Ambushed by goblins and investigate their cave - brings you to level 2
2) Do quests within the town - brings you to level 3
3) Do quests across the countryside - brings you to level 4
4) Explore a dungeon - play this at level 4 and maybe get to 5.

This is the suggestion.  New box set periodically (yearly) with a new printed mod that brings you from level 1 to level 5 at the conclusion.  The first chapter of SKT did this pretty well too since the adventure was really a level 5-10 adventure where they needed a way to level up the characters quickly.

I would love to see a new box with new art and a new 1-4 mod every year.  Different theme.  This could also be a way for them to do new settings.  Have a box set for $20 with an intro mod and enough to run through.  If they want to continue to play in that world, pick up the PDFs off of dmsguild too.


----------



## Kobold Boots

bmfrosty said:


> I'm not sure the difference between what you're talking about and what's in the starter set already.
> 
> There's an adventure that's the equivalent of 4 modules.
> 
> 1) Ambushed by goblins and investigate their cave - brings you to level 2
> 2) Do quests within the town - brings you to level 3
> 3) Do quests across the countryside - brings you to level 4
> 4) Explore a dungeon - play this at level 4 and maybe get to 5.
> 
> This is the suggestion.  New box set periodically (yearly) with a new printed mod that brings you from level 1 to level 5 at the conclusion.  The first chapter of SKT did this pretty well too since the adventure was really a level 5-10 adventure where they needed a way to level up the characters quickly.
> 
> I would love to see a new box with new art and a new 1-4 mod every year.  Different theme.  This could also be a way for them to do new settings.  Have a box set for $20 with an intro mod and enough to run through.  If they want to continue to play in that world, pick up the PDFs off of dmsguild too.




You know what.. your idea with a different starter module based on setting is a better idea.

The difference is, I'd put out four starter sets at the same time with the different modules and let people collect.

Year or two later, put out new sets with errata and maybe different modules.  Depends on sales though.

KB


----------



## bmfrosty

Kobold Boots said:


> You know what.. your idea with a different starter module based on setting is a better idea.
> 
> The difference is, I'd put out four starter sets at the same time with the different modules and let people collect.
> 
> Year or two later, put out new sets with errata and maybe different modules.  Depends on sales though.
> 
> KB




I really just see it as a way they could do more printed level 1-4 adventures and more art boxes.  If they were to do an art box a year with a new adventure exclusive to that art box for the duration of the year, I'd buy a new art box every year.  Both something cool for the shelf, and a new adventure to jumpstart a campaign.

Notes on SKT chapter 1:
1) Clear out the goblin invasion of Nightstone - Brings you to level 2
2) Repel an invasion of Nightstone - Brings you to level 3
3) Clear out the things in the Dripping Caves - Brings you to level 4
4) Fly on a cloud and deal with two encounters on your way to a destination where you continue your campaign - Brings you to level 5.

I love adventures like these.


----------



## generic

We have a "6e When?", so why not a "6e? Why?"

"Arise, my creation, and sow destruction, I mean... discussion once more!"

What is the purpose of a 6th-edition, and what would its effect on the hobby be?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Aebir-Toril said:


> "6e? Why?"




"Same thing we do every Edition, Pinky:  _try to take over the world_!"


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> It doesn’t really matter if we need it or not, it will happen eventually. That said, it’s not happening any time soon. 5e is doing far too well for WotC to kill it yet. Maybe in another 5 years.



I actually doubt it. 

Seems like they can just keep putting out “Star Wars monopoly!” Boxes forever. 

Might get an anniversary reprint that cleans some stuff up, like a “5.1” update, but only forum nerds will call it a new edition.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Yeah, my hunch is they are shooting for keeping this version alive for a decade, and releasing a "Gold Edition" for the game's 50th anniversary.



This. And the gold edition will very much still be 5e.


----------



## ad_hoc

Aebir-Toril said:


> We have a "6e When?", so why not a "6e? Why?"
> 
> "Arise, my creation, and sow destruction, I mean... discussion once more!"
> 
> What is the purpose of a 6th-edition, and what would its effect on the hobby be?





None and Bad.


----------



## Henry

Why do we need a 6th edition? Because I, too, wish to see the world burn. MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Seramus

5.1 Anniversary Edition with some clean up.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Eventually 5e sales will flag and they'll think it's time. If there are other much loved innovations in gaming at the time 6e will be more different if not it will be a slight evolution. Most likely though, having been burned on making radical changes for 4e, whatever new edition will probably have some pretty incremental changes.

But as I write this Amazon's #17 bestseller is the Eberron book. The PHB is #143 and often cracks the top hundred. If you don't want change the solution is to keep buying stuff and keep getting new people to try the hobby. As long as the PHB is a perennial Amazon bestseller and supplements aren't flopping they probably won't change it.

As for whether I want a 5.5e or a 6e, I'm satisfied enough with so much of it that I think I'm happier with the devil I know then risking whatever crapshoot may come next, barring the unlikely scenario the WotC decides that I personally should design a new edition.


----------



## Oofta

Benjamin Olson said:


> ...
> As for whether I want a 5.5e or a 6e, I'm satisfied enough with so much of it that I think I'm happier with the devil I know then risking whatever crapshoot may come next, barring the unlikely scenario the WotC decides that *I personally should design a new edition.*




You really don't want me to design a new version because I would have no clue how to make the game all that much better.  I have a few house rules but they're minor tweaks.

I'm sure at some point I'd just panic and start yelling things like "Needs more cowbell!"  All races would become variants of minotaurs distinguished by different variations of cowbell.

I can see the reviews now

This is a load of bull!
Udderly ridiculous
Trying to Horn in on the Crazy Cows game craze!
Don't be cowed into buying this!
I've got a beef with this edition!

And so on. It would not be pretty.


----------



## Mistwell

I find it interesting that the same subset of grousers who complain the 5e publication schedule is far too slow and the amount of crunch that's coming out each year is far too low...are the same guys talking about 6e.


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:


> I find it interesting that the same subset of grousers who complain the 5e publication schedule is far too slow and the amount of crunch that's coming out each year is far too low...are the same guys talking about 6e.




This is not at all surprising.  If you aren't getting enough stuff now to feed your hunger... a new edition might well fill that void.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> This is not at all surprising.  If you aren't getting enough stuff now to feed your hunger... a new edition might well fill that void.



A lot of the time, a new D&D edition just hits a big reset button and starts with Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, and it's another however-many-years' wait to get to what you were hoping for.  

I mean, think about it:  if you've been anxiously waiting for the Artificer for 5 years, how many years do you get to have fun with it before 6e comes along and doesn't put it in the PH1 again?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Mistwell said:


> I find it interesting that the same subset of grousers who complain the 5e publication schedule is far too slow and the amount of crunch that's coming out each year is far too low...are the same guys talking about 6e.




Some people just always need to see what's over the next hill.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Jester David said:


> The Starter Set seems to be the poorest selling D&D product.




Right now on Amazon: #4 in Dungeons & Dragons Game.

Not saying your wrong; Amazon is only one outlet and things sell better sometimes than others. But if it's ever doing that well through said mega-retailer they must be getting a good number of them out there and even if it's at a low profit margin it's a gateway drug.

Personally I bought it because it was cheap. We had a lot of fun in the lost mines of phandelver. The rest of the box was basically filler if you buy anything else, but, once again, I think I payed $12-14 so whatever.


----------



## Mistwell

Jester David said:


> The Starter Set seems to be the poorest selling D&D product.




It's literally the oldest 5e product there is having been published in July of 2014, and it's ranked right now  #349 in All Books, and was in the top 10 for all books at one point for a while, and was in the top 100 for years. The only reason it seems to have dropped down to #349 is that it has THREE competitors out from WOTC for that same kind of product now - The Essentials Kit, the Rick and Morty Starter Set, and the Stranger Things Starter Set.

For comparison, Pathfinder 2e Core Book is ranked #5000 in that same All Books, just a few months after being published.

The Starter Set has been one of the best selling products in the history of D&D. For you to claim it's one of the poorest selling is frankly baffling.


----------



## CleverNickName

Do I want or need a 6th Edition?  Not really, I'm really enjoying the current edition.
Does WotC want or need a 6th Edition?  Probably not anytime soon, with 5E performing so well.
Does the gaming community want or need a 6th Edition?  Doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Now it is time to the return and update of classic titles. Later the time to try new ideas, and in the last years of the edition they can allow themself higher risks.

The goal for game designers should be a flexible system where fantasy could be mixed with different genres as space opera, planetary romance or urban fantasy. D&D isn't ready yet for crossovers with confrontations amons different playables factions with different levels of magic and/or technology. 

If WotC wanted to sell a book with new rules then its titles should be "Unearthed Arcana". 

If there is a "new edition" before 2024 the name should be "d20 Modern 2.0.".


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> A lot of the time, a new D&D edition just hits a big reset button and starts with Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, and it's another however-many-years' wait to get to what you were hoping for.




Well, that brings up a point - there's at least two versions of "the current publication pace is too slow."  In one, the issue is that they are not getting to the specific thing the person wants ("I want Psionics.  It isn't out yet.  Therefore, the pace is too slow.")  In the other, it is simple a desire for new and different ("I get bored.  I want new things. I don't get enough new things.  Therefore the pace is too slow.")

There's a bit of an assumption in the first kind of person - that the thing they want really is on the list of priorities, and would certainly come around if they just did more stuff.  Maybe that asumption is correct, and maybe it isn't.

For the latter kind of person, a new thief is still new, and that's fine.

I expect to start playing an Artificer character on Friday.  But I was not _waiting for_ the artificer.  When a game came around, the GM just said, "Dude, I think you'd find this nifty."  I will get to play it for one character.  I don't need to, play it 17 ways from Sunday.  The class itself is not a thing I am playing with - I am playing a character who has the class.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Umbran said:


> Well, that brings up a point - there's at least two versions of "the current publication pace is too slow."  In one, the issue is that they are not getting to the specific thing the person wants ("I want Psionics.  It isn't out yet.  Therefore, the pace is too slow.")  In the other, it is simple a desire for new and different ("I get bored.  I want new things. I don't get enough new things.  Therefore the pace is too slow.")



Sure, a third or fourth might be a craving for power-creep, or a desire for more mix/match (not necessarily min/max) options to enable yet more out-there/interesting builds.


----------



## Umbran

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, a third or fourth might be a craving for power-creep, or a desire for more mix/max (not necessarily min/max) options to enable yet more out-there/interesting builds.




Agreed.  I might think of those as varieties of "I get bored, I want more stuff" - just particular reasons to want more stuff.


----------



## generic

Umbran said:


> Agreed.  I might think of those as varieties of "I get bored, I want more stuff" - just particular reasons to want more stuff.



I'm actually rather glad that 5e has abandoned the relentless pace of previous editions, being better able to focus on individual supplements and the qualities of such releases.

In 3e, it seemed that many of the releases were somewhat rushed (or downright weird, in the case of the Erotic sourcebook).


----------



## Weiley31

The only interesting thing bout 3.0/3.5 was how many blood races you had, for selection, once everything was said and done.


----------



## generic

Weiley31 said:


> The only interesting thing bout 3.0/3.5 was how many blood races you had, for selection, once everything was said and done.



That and the heaps of classes to play.


----------



## Weiley31

Aebir-Toril said:


> That and the heaps of classes to play.




Yes: I liked the Warblade AND Duskblade alot.


----------



## generic

Weiley31 said:


> Yes: I liked the Warblade AND Duskblade alot.



Both good, unlike the _gasps_ Forsaker.


----------



## Garthanos

Advanced D&D


----------



## Jd Smith1

I would say that 6e would be viable only if they have a better system. I started on the brown books, quit after seeing 2e, kept tabs upon but did not play 3e, 3.5e, and 4e, but returned on 5e because they finally fixed a lot of what I hated.  If they want me to buy 6e, they would have to have a significant improvement on 5e. Not just different, but _better_. A more dynamic damage range, a better skill system, armor rules that have a more significant impact, that sort of thing.

But if its just going to me tweaked races, classes, spell lists, and feat options, they're wasting their money.

What I would like to see is a basic system ala the PHB, and then modular rules for combat, skills, etc, that a GM can add if desired but still fit with the PHB. That way a group, such as mine, that does a lot of investigative scenarios could benefit from a more detailed skill system that can be fine-tuned, and so forth.


----------



## Xenonnonex

If they could open up other settings and create distinct alternate rules to use with those settings that may be a way to have an impactful 5.5e.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Xenonnonex said:


> If they could open up other settings and create distinct alternate rules to use with those settings that may be a way to have an impactful 5.5e.




That would be excellent. A magic-less 5e Modern, 5e Spelljammer, a sci-fi 5e... you could make them 5.1, 5,2, 5.3, etc.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My suggestion is a d20 Modern, and a complete new fictional world, but with a panzer punk look (fantasy second world war). It is more politically correct when antagonists are a fictional race as hobgoblins or onis (mage ogres). 

I guess they will try a new Gamma World, with some changes in the d20 system, for example the abilities scores, if you want stories with more investigation and social interactions, and some racial traits being replaced with optional race feats, as in Pathfinder 2.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I could definitely see WoTC start to publish their own variant 5e games. 

Instead of new editions, you’d get “The Sci-Fi Edition”. Not a replacement, but a supplement. 

But that’s as close as I can see them coming to a new edition anytime in the next decade.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

You can use d20 system for D&D, for d20 Future, or a variant "Mutants & Masterminds" but d20 isn't enough universal for crossovers between different genres. A dinosaur or an horde of zombies would be a serious challenge for a barbarian but in a sci-fi controlling a drone, firing a modern weapon or driving a truck against the target could be enough. A simple goblin with firearms and vehicles (or even a powered armour as in Fallout) from Gamma World would be greater menace, and the challenge rating or XPs reward updated. You could create a d20 version of the characters from Street Fighters Capcom's  videogames, but these couldn't face enemies from d20 Overwatch or d20 Starcraft. The balance of power is broken with characters from different lines.

And Hasbro wants a D&D AAA videogame but these projects need years, and without a coming soon new edition if it is possible.


----------

