# Is 5th edition too big for there to be a 6th edition?



## Mercurius

We seem to be in uncharted territory due to the popularity of the current version of D&D. It isn't so much that 5E is popular, but that _D&D_ is, in the form of 5e. This is not to downplay the importance of the edition itself in the game's current popularity, but to point out that for the new "boomers" coming into the game over the last five years, "5E" and "D&D" are one and the same. I would imagine that some of them don't even know that D&D is in its fifth edition.

Now maybe there is some similarity to the boom of the 80s, which busted later in the decade. But there are two factors that I think makes things different today: One, the decline of the 80s was partly fueled by scandals (religious fundamentalists, Gygax being ousted, etc); two, the internet and social media, which has the net effect of creating an extended community which didn't exist in the 80s.

There was also the surge of 3.x back in the 00s, but WotC was handling the property quite differently, glutting the market with product. WotC has been very careful about not repeating that this time around.

It would seem that D&D continues to grow. Now we can only assume--and I'm guessing WotC expects--that eventually the market will stop growing, maybe contract a bit, and stabilize. But if it stabilizes at a much larger number than in past generations, or even continues to grow as more new players join the game than leave, it may be counter-productive to do a 6e. It is easier to change things up when you have a relatively small fan-base, but if your base numbers in tens of millions, it becomes more difficult, especially if a large percentage of those fans are pretty casual and thus less likely to want to learn a new ruleset.

The only way we see a truly new edition, in my opinion, is if disaster strikes: Let's say 5e continues thriving for another few years, but then growth slows and the community contracts a bit and then collapses, perhaps fueled by a poorly received movie and some kind of virtual reality game that sees many people leaving their imaginations behind. Possible, but we can be optimistic that this won't happen, at least for the foreseeable future (who knows what the 2030s will look like).

Now this doesn't mean we won't see a "revised" edition: core rulebooks with new covers, art, formatting, and maybe a few odds and ends here and there. In fact, I fully expect this - probably for the 50th anniversary in 2024 (which is also the 10th anniversary of 5E). But it will be backwards compatible, meaning not a 6th edition, probably not a 5.5...more like a 5.1 or 5.2.

All that said, some contraction is probably inevitable, at least at some point. The boomer generation of the late 70s to early 80s supposedly went up to around 20-25 million at one point, but the vast majority of those folks didn't continue playing beyond middle or high school, or maybe college. Maybe 10-20% continued on, forming the core of long-time D&D players: mostly Gen Xers, although with a few Boomers. the Millenial boom of the OGL era was comparatively a "micro-boom," and coupled with the fracturing of the fanbase and the diversifying of RPGs in general, and I don't think D&D gained as many diehard fans from Millenials as it did from Gen Xers.

But the current wave might be different, at least to some extent. We're seeing true "digital natives"--younger Millenials and older "Gen Z"--enter the hobby, and it is almost like it is a panacea to the smart technologies and video games that they've been raised on, although this might be a bit of a tangent. But the point is, D&D doesn't seem to be a graying hobby anymore, and that also means that they don't have to cater to older diehards as much as they used to.

What do you think? Is 5th edition too big for there to be a 6th edition? What are some of the possible futures you see?


----------



## cmad1977

The think there is a reason WoTC doesn’t call this edition 5e.

So... yes.


----------



## Shadow Demon

There will never be another edition that reboots D&D. The basic core is going to stay the same with only future tweaking of class archetypes or additional tactical options.


----------



## Prakriti

Releasing a new edition when the game's audience is growing rapidly would be like changing horses in midstream: a bad business move. So as long as 5E's sales continue to grow at this rate, then yes, I think it is "too big" to be replaced. If sales start to flag (as they may well do in 2-4 years), then all bets are off. But that would be the correct time to release a new edition, not now.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Mercurius said:


> Is 5th edition too big for there to be a 6th edition?



To answer the title question - and get my innate cynicism out of the way - first:  You're only as big as your last quarter.  If bigness is all that keeps the rev roll at bay, yes, for now, but next quarter, next year, next decade? 
Fate will decide.

...OK, glad that's out of the way...



> "5E" and "D&D" are one and the same. I would imagine that some of them don't even know that D&D is in its fifth edition.



Perfectly true.  That the Basic Set I started with was different from the ones that immediately preceded and followed it was a matter of complete indifference to me back in the day, too (and remained a mystery to me for /decades/). 



> Now maybe there is some similarity to the boom of the 80s, which busted later in the decade. But there are two factors that I think makes things different today:



Every boom is like the ones before - including the impulse to believe it's different.  ;P 







> One, the decline of the 80s was partly fueled by scandals (religious fundamentalists, Gygax being ousted, etc); two, the internet and social media, which has the net effect of creating an extended community which didn't exist in the 80s.



Heck, the _boom_ was fueled by scandal!  BADD and the Satantic Panic had teenagers running to D&D like it was rock music (go teen rebellion!).   By The September That Never Ended, D&D certainly had an extended on-line community.  There were BBSs in the 80s.  There was a little sense of community around The Dragon magazine, I'd even say.



> There was also the surge of 3.x back in the 00s



But it was a different sort.  It was D&D re-taking dominance in the established hobby.  This is actual growth fueled by new adoption.



> Now we can only assume--and I'm guessing WotC expects--that eventually the market will stop growing, maybe contract a bit, and stabilize. But if it stabilizes at a much larger number than in past generations, or even continues to grow as more new players join the game than leave, it may be counter-productive to do a 6e.



If it stabilizes, rather than falls off precipitously, whatever level it stabilizes at, radical rev rolls like 3e & 4e would make no sense.  Even a tweak or change in direction like 3.5 or Essentials wouldn't make sense.  It'd be boat-rocking.

A "new" edition that's just a face-lift or a format change or a tie-in, that'd be prudent.  Maybe something like 2e, at the outside.



> The only way we see a truly new edition, in my opinion, is if disaster strikes: Let's say 5e continues thriving for another few years, but then growth slows and the community contracts a bit and then collapses, perhaps fueled by a poorly received movie and some kind of virtual reality game that sees many people leaving their imaginations behind.



 I'm not sure even that'd do it.  Hasbro shelving the brand, as was feared c2012, might well be a viable alternative.  Afterall, a re-boot will only goose demand in the hard-core fanbase, that won't deliver anything like the growth the line'll've become accustomed to by then.



> the Millenial boom of the OGL era was comparatively a "micro-boom," and coupled with the fracturing of the fanbase and the diversifying of RPGs in general, and I don't think D&D gained as many diehard fans from Millenials as it did from Gen Xers.



I'm not sure how you're bracketing your generations, here.  As I understand it, the Boomer were '46-65, Gen-X 66-82, and Millennials (thanks to the re-start of history, and a desire to peg them to said Millennium) 83-2000.



> D&D doesn't seem to be a graying hobby anymore, and that also means that they don't have to cater to older diehards as much as they used to.



 Yes, and no way _not until they die_.  Yeah, there's a younger generation of D&D that's more numerous than just the kids of the die-hards that have been passing for new blood in the intervening decades.  But the core fanbase - and it's prejudices - will matter for decades to come.  Because rejection by them would be /bad/, would generate controversey.  
And because the new generation is being indoctrinated to conceptualize, play, and value the game as they do.



> What do you think? Is 5th edition too big for there to be a 6th edition? What are some of the possible futures you see?



 Best case?  D&D becomes a young-adult rite of passage, everyone plays it at some point, you'd expect any household to have at least one D&D book.  It become Monopoly for the mid-late 21st century. There are new - special - editions every decade or so, that aren't any different from eachother in substance.


----------



## Sacrosanct

If D&D regresses so badly that sales take a nose dive, there won’t be a 6th edition. Either HASBRO will sit on the IP and shut it down, or sell it off. And I doubt the new company would spend the resources to do a reboot if the market isn’t supporting one


----------



## Shiroiken

As great as 5E is, there will eventually come a time for the edition to change. I truly believe that it will be the first edition to break the cycle of ever shortening editions, probably lasting 10+ years, but eventually it will be in WotC best interest in making a new edition. Hopefully the change will be similar to the change between 1E & 2E AD&D, where there was enough similarity that it didn't feel like a completely different game (as 3E and 4E did from their predecessors).


----------



## darjr

There was a podcast out there where Chris or Mike had talked about real trepidation about messing with the players handbook and screwing it all up. I think that keeps 6e at bay. And at this point 5e I kinda becoming iconic itself. I think they’ll look to other ways to advance the game.


----------



## Mistwell

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Don't you know D&D 5e is vaporware?


----------



## Jer

Personally I think we're past the experimental era for d&d as a game (though not necessarily as a brand). I think going forward the game will be fairly stable.  Look at games like Risk or Monopoly or Clue - minor tweaks every few years to the rules and presentation, but the core of the game doesn't change.  D&D has hit that level at this point and they should embrace it.

Instead of new editions, I expect to see the experimentation come in variants and licensed tie ins.  Wizards is dabbling in this now - they did a Stranger Things tie in and have a Rick & Morty one coming.  I expect that as growth levels off we'll see more of those types of products instead of a new edition - harder to develop than a Monopoly variant, but not as hard as a brand new edition. And no worries about losing the player base - if they don't care for the D&D Legend of Zelda Kit or think the D&D Disney's Magic Kingdom Kit is a blatant cash grab it probably won't stop them from buying the next FR supplement wizards produces.


----------



## robus

It’s a difficult thing to foresee. The critical component in D&D is the DM, no DM no D&D, bad DM maybe no more D&D. DMing is work and DMing well is an art (and something I keep trying to get better at) and I think players might be getting more aware and wary of bad DMing? And maybe more demanding of good DMing (see the Mercer effect). Not sure where I’m going with all that except to say that there’s a lot of labor required beyond just learning the rules and buying books. And perhaps there will be burnout from that?

As for 5e, it seems to be a very solid foundation for the future (certainly some opportunity for minor revision but nothing egregious). I’m less certain about the Forgotten Realms as that seems stale as old boots. (but perhaps that’s just me  )


----------



## darjr

D&D Legend of Zelda!!!! Ohahoha!


----------



## DND_Reborn

Since WotC considers 5E simply "D&D" I think we will certainly see a new 6E coined "AD&D", in following with tradition. However, this won't happen until there is a new mechanic or revised simpliciation or something that warrants an entirely new edition. Even then, everything should be backwards compatible or else many fans would be upset IMO.


----------



## Jer

darjr said:


> D&D Legend of Zelda!!!! Ohahoha!




I would be first in line for a Zelda themed Essentials kit.
I'd be almost as quick for a Mario themed one...


----------



## Sacrosanct

Mistwell said:


> I don't know what you guys are talking about. Don't you know D&D 5e is vaporware?




Man, and I had managed to go literally years totally forgetting Frank Trollman existed. So thanks for that. I’ll give him this though, it takes a lot of...something...to be so wrong, so adamant about it, and keep digging the same hole for 7 years and running. There is a whole lot denial of reality going on in that thread.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

I imagine the next edition while a ways off, will be backwards compatible with 5e.


----------



## FrogReaver

I expect 5e to last quite some time.  They could probably have good luck at some point with partnering with more mainstream fantasy settings and making a PHB and Setting book those worlds.

D&D Game of Thrones edition
D&D Harry Potter Edition
D&D Middle Earth Edition

etc.


----------



## Zardnaar

Eventually they will hit peak D&D or saturation point.

 They probably can't make 6E to radical and I don't expect 6E until 2024 at the earliest.


----------



## Yaarel

Possibly, they will leave D&D 5e alone, and market the next edition of D&D under a different brandname.

The new brandname allows designers more creative freedom, and they will see how gamers respond to it.


----------



## FrogReaver

Zardnaar said:


> Eventually they will hit peak D&D or saturation point.
> 
> They probably can't make 6E to radical and I don't expect 6E until 2024 at the earliest.




I'm thinking more like 2030.  At the rate they've put out material they could make each of those books into a splat book and stay afloat on splat alone till then.  And we still wouldn't be close to the level of splat in 3.5e


----------



## Enrico Poli1

Nothing is too big to fail, eventually old age takes over. 
5e is so good that, I hope, it will last many years, 15-20 or even more.
WotC has to avoid the error(s) made with the passage from 3.5 to 4e. It was too early to change, 3.5 had entered it's mature age and had much more to offer. In fact, Pathfinder 1e covered the second half of life of that edition. 2000-2019 is almost 20 years!
5e is young, strong, it's in int juvenile phase, and had much much more to offer.


----------



## Zardnaar

FrogReaver said:


> I'm thinking more like 2030.  At the rate they've put out material they could make each of those books into a splat book and stay afloat on splat alone till then.  And we still wouldn't be close to the level of splat in 3.5e




Anything's possible if we get 2 or 3 years of declining sales we'll get 6E about 2 years after that. 10 to 12 years is more likely IMHO.

 6E 2024 if things slow down, 50th anniversary tie in or new cover art 50th anniversary tie in.


----------



## Charlaquin

Short answer: no.
Long answer: noooooooooooooooooo.

There will be a 6e. It probably won’t be for a good long while, and it will probably be pretty backwards-compatible with 5e. But it will come eventually. There will be a 7e too. No system is timeless.


----------



## Eric V

Charlaquin said:


> Short answer: no.
> Long answer: noooooooooooooooooo.
> 
> There will be a 6e. It probably won’t be for a good long while, and it will probably be pretty backwards-compatible with 5e. But it will come eventually. There will be a 7e too. No system is timeless.




I'm not sure it's a "system" anymore, though, as opposed to simply "a game." A game like, as someone posted above, Clue, Risk, or Monopoly...and those don't change.


----------



## Morrus

One of the fundamental truths about this world is that nothing ever lasts. The Roman Empire, MySpace, cassette tapes, Westerns.  I see no reason why D&D would be immune to that.

It won’t disappear, but it’s popularity will change over time, just like everything else does. We should enjoy it while we’re riding the wave! And hopefully the wave will last a nice long time.


----------



## Jacob Lewis

5e will last as long as there are enough people are still interested in it. And by "enough people", I mean a customer base that is continuously growing and demanding for products they can purchase and make each quarter more profitable than the last. This trickle of product releases has actually succeeded in keeping everyone satisfied with enough usuable content to make them happy while keeping them hungry for the next new thing.

D&D has evolved from an elephant to a gorilla and now a juggernaught that is becoming a kaiju. Unstoppable.


----------



## Ogre Mage

Times change and it will for D&D as well.  That said, 5E D&D has reached a level of mainstream success I never would have thought possible back when I came of age in the 1990s.  A combination of the most gateway-friendly rules D&D has ever had, judicious product releases and the popularity of livestream plays has produced the broadest audience for D&D that I have observed during my lifetime.  I could never have foreseen that playing/talking about D&D could create Internet stars.  That teachers would organize after-school D&D clubs.  But here we are.

25 years from now, I think 5E will be seen as a watershed for D&D, a game which was exactly right for its particular moment in time.


----------



## Charlaquin

Eric V said:


> I'm not sure it's a "system" anymore, though, as opposed to simply "a game." A game like, as someone posted above, Clue, Risk, or Monopoly...and those don't change.



I’m sure it is.


----------



## robus

I posted this over in the other 6e thread, but it's just as relevant here I think...



> The rules are finally "good enough and simple enough" IMHO. They support the goals of a successful D&D game which is everyone having fun participating in a fantasy adventure without having to be an expert, which is why the player base is exploding and pulling in people who aren't particularly nerdy but love the escapist fun that a TTRPG can provide.
> 
> I know I certainly enjoy getting away from my computer and sitting around a table with real people and telling wild stories  (not to take anything away from those who play via computer, of course, but I don't think that's the majority?).
> 
> To majorly mess with this success, just to "refresh" the ruleset, would be a big mistake IMHO. There's a gritty crunchy option available to those who want it (in PathFinder 2, or other RPGs). D&D needs to keep its grip on being the most popular RPG, and that means a stable rules base that people can become familiar with (and eventually expert).
> 
> The way to keep things fresh (IMHO) is to, slowly, expand the available classes, introduce new spells & monsters and settings to go with them. And of course adventures.
> 
> And finally a book they should absolutely produce is a more friendly guide to DMing. The DMG is terrible for new DMs, IMHO, and D&D needs more and more DMs. "How to become a great DM" or some such.




Edited quote for clarity


----------



## Morrus

robus said:


> There's a gritty option available to those who want it (in PathFinder 2, or other RPGs).




Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Morrus said:


> Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.



Yeah, I've never played Pathfinder (1 or 2), but from browsing the books it doesn't seem really gritty to me. I would like to see 5E a bit more grittier and some of our house-rules reflect that.


----------



## Reynard

Mistwell said:


> I don't know what you guys are talking about. Don't you know D&D 5e is vaporware?




To be fair, the "modular D&D" version of 5E was in fact vaporware. We did not get that. The game we got was probably better than that would have been, but even so.

One problem with the thesis of the OP is that it presumes this current boom isn't a fluke. I don't think we can presume that. It's based on a lot of things that are very "right now."That suggests a pretty good likelihood of bust in the relatively near future as the drivers of the boom switch gears.Sure, there are a lot of GenXers who have returned to the game (some of us never left) but all those GenZ kids are just as likely to find a different hobby, or realize just how narrow D&D is in the context of the broader roleplaying hobby.

I think we are on the back side of the zeitgeist, personally.


----------



## theapoapostolov

Morrus said:


> Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.




I completely agree. In fact, the balanced power level and design language of 5E allows to make 5E gritter and HEMA-authentic far easier than Pathfinder 1e or 2e. I know for a fact, since I do that as a main project.


----------



## jayoungr

Morrus said:


> Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.



I suspect the word @robus was looking for was actually "granular," rather than "gritty."

That said, it's worth noting that even Pathfinder is getting a second edition, after all this time.


----------



## Reynard

theapoapostolov said:


> I completely agree. In fact, the balanced power level and design language of 5E allows to make 5E gritter and HEMA-authentic far easier than Pathfinder 1e or 2e. I know for a fact, since I do that as a main project.




"Gritty" 5E requires a pretty fundamental change in its treatment of wounds, healing and death.


----------



## cmad1977

Mistwell said:


> I don't know what you guys are talking about. Don't you know D&D 5e is vaporware?




Haha. I handed my heard that. I was told often here that D&D was dying in the vine because WoTC didn’t release a splatbook per month. 

Been a slooooooooow death so far.


----------



## darjr

Well two things happened to the early ideas of 5e. playtesting and enough humility to follow that testings conclusions. If it meant darlings had to die, they did.


----------



## robus

Morrus said:


> Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.



I was thinking crunchy, but wrote gritty


----------



## MechaTarrasque

If the movie is a big seller and if things in the movie are different from in the game (and since this is a Hasbro movie, that's pretty likely), then they will phantom introduce 6e that is more like the movie.


----------



## Parmandur

5E is solid enough, and big enough, that a 6E (and there will be a 6E) won't be a major sea change, but a refinement and repackaging.


----------



## Eric V

Parmandur said:


> 5E is solid enough, and big enough, that a 6E (and there will be a 6E) won't be a major sea change, but a refinement and repackaging.



Do you really see that as a "6E" though?  Every time we've gotten a new edition, the changes have been substantive...maybe we're just using the terms differently.


----------



## Parmandur

Eric V said:


> Do you really see that as a "6E" though?  Every time we've gotten a new edition, the changes have been substantive...maybe we're just using the terms differently.




I think they will at some point publish revised core books, marketed as being completely compatible with the older ones, that acknowledge being a sixth edition in the printing page. I do not expect a 6E marketing push ala 3E, 3.5 or 4E.


----------



## DND_Reborn

robus said:


> I was thinking crunchy, but wrote gritty



I could see crunchy being a more applicable adjective for it.


----------



## Jer

Parmandur said:


> I think they will at some point publish revised core books, marketed as being completely compatible with the older ones, that acknowledge being a sixth edition in the printing page. I do not expect a 6E marketing push ala 3E, 3.5 or 4E.




I think unless they decide to try to go back to the old model of making money off of D&D, we're more likely to get a "Fifth Edition Revised" first.  Not like a 3.5 edition, but more like when they changed the covers on the 2nd edition books and incorporated errata into them.  (And I think going back to the old model is far less likely than Hasbro/Wizards just putting the game into the vault and letting nostalgia build back up again).


----------



## Reynard

Jer said:


> I think unless they decide to try to go back to the old model of making money off of D&D, we're more likely to get a "Fifth Edition Revised" first.  Not like a 3.5 edition, but more like when they changed the covers on the 2nd edition books and incorporated errata into them.  (And I think going back to the old model is far less likely than Hasbro/Wizards just putting the game into the vault and letting nostalgia build back up again).




That model doesn't really make much sense in the current era, does it?

If D&D doesn't go through a pretty substantial contraction as the player base moves on to the Next Big Thing (a turn of events I still expect to be the most likely outcome) I think we'll see something closer to the 4E model take over but with the actual technology and online community to support it this time.


----------



## RSIxidor

I'm kind of hopeful that any change from here is iterative rather than significant. Basic rules stay the same but the structure of character build options might change. I've seen some others saying this would be more like how Advanced Dungeons & Dragons changed the game from the previous edition but I don't have that experience personally.


----------



## theapoapostolov

Reynard said:


> "Gritty" 5E requires a pretty fundamental change in its treatment of wounds, healing and death.



Agreed and that is what we do in my little supplement.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Eric V said:


> Do you really see that as a "6E" though?  Every time we've gotten a new edition, the changes have been substantive...maybe we're just using the terms differently.



2e was not that different from 1e.


----------



## Eric V

MonsterEnvy said:


> 2e was not that different from 1e.




Yeah, that was the closest, but even just the introduction of kits, priestly spheres, main class bards, etc. still made it fairly different.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

Indeed, but it was still fairly backwards compatible, and considered a new edition. I imagine a 6e would be the 2e to 5e's 1e.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Eric V said:


> Yeah, that was the closest, but even just the introduction of kits, priestly spheres, main class bards, etc. still made it fairly different.





MonsterEnvy said:


> Indeed, but it was still fairly backwards compatible, and considered a new edition. I imagine a 6e would be the 2e to 5e's 1e.




The backwards compatibility was intentional.  I recall Skip Williams (I think it was him) in an interview years ago saying, "Of course with 2e we thought about ascending AC, but we wanted to make sure players were able to use all of their 1e stuff with 2e."


----------



## OB1

The strategy now comes down to User Acquisition Cost vs the Lifetime Customer Value.  Perhaps the biggest boost that 5e is getting is that there is now a generation who grew up with D&D teaching it to the next generation, which WotC leaned into by making the game simple enough to run for those with busy lives and only a casual interest.  Liveplay podcasts and twitch streams being the other major factor.  

The supplemental materials sold every year are intended to appeal to current customers, yes, but more importantly to keep attracting new customers.  Because those are cheaper to produce than a brand new system, it's much more likely that they make adjustments to the types of materials they are producing than to develop a brand new system.  

It would be fascinating to know what the LTV of the average 5e purchaser is, I'd guess it's around $100.  Hasbro doesn't need every player to buy every book for the rest of their lives, they just need to keep attracting new players to the game at a cost less than what their LTV is.  As long as releases like Ravnica, Waterdeep, Avernus and Eberron keep new players buying PHBs, it would be counterproductive to develop a new PHB.  

And even if there is a bust, it will still likely make more sense to focus on producing better supplemental materials to attract new users than to change the core game as it exists now.  At least until Digital becomes the primary way that users consume the game, at which point they can slowly patch the game to freshen it up without requiring new buy in (like we saw with the Beast Companion tweaks via D&D Beyond).


----------



## Tony Vargas

Reynard said:


> Sure, there are a lot of GenXers who have returned to the game (some of us never left) but all those GenZ kids are just as likely to find a different hobby, _or realize just how narrow D&D is in the context of the broader roleplaying hobby_.



 I'm not really disagreeing, but the last bit seems not to happen, IMX.  I've been with the hobby for decades, and D&D seems to hold onto a fairly large portion of it because a fairly large portion of those who play it never really play anything else.  They stay in that narrow D&D experience, unaware of, or uninterested in, the potential of the broader hobby and the (very niche, always languishing) nigh-cottage industry that supports it.


----------



## Jer

Eric V said:


> Yeah, that was the closest, but even just the introduction of kits, priestly spheres, main class bards, etc. still made it fairly different.




Different enough that I know of groups who refused to change editions because they hated everything about 2e.  In 1989 the idea that 2e and 1e were not that different led to arguments.

1e and 2e only look "not that different" with the benefit of hindsight after seeing how much of a shift the 2e -> 3e changes were.  At the time it looked like a major revision that wasn't in line with what had come before it in a lot of ways (notably as I recall there was thought that Unearthed Arcana would be part of a second edition and it mostly was not).


----------



## Mistwell

Reynard said:


> To be fair, the "modular D&D" version of 5E was in fact vaporware. We did not get that. The game we got was probably better than that would have been, but even so.




In no way, in no interpretation of that thread by any reasoned, rational way, is "modular" part of what he's talking about when he says 5e is vaporware. Let's not give him any false defense - he's definitely, unquestionable NOT talking about the nature of the game. He is saying literally 5e would not happen. And then when it did happen, he's saying it was being run on a skeleton crew to barely keep it alive by just publishing the game with no support at all just to get something out there as a sort of placeholder to maintain their rights. So yes, let's be fair, and hold him accountable for what he actually said rather than what we can imagine to spin it as.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Jer said:


> Different enough that I know of groups who refused to change editions because they hated everything about 2e.  In 1989 the idea that 2e and 1e were not that different led to arguments.




As I recall, those arguments weren't really about the differences in the mechanics though, but in design philosophy.  I.e., what upset people was how 2e "wussified" itself and sold out by removing the assassin, half orc, and demons.  The actual mechanical changes were largely welcomed.  THAC0 was official instead of how we just used it anyway, the bard class wasn't a mess, psionics were a lot better than what was in 1e, and thief skill progression (being allowed to have control) was much welcomed.  Priest spheres and specialty schools were also positively received.  And the monstrous manual was a huge hit.

That's what I remember anyway.


----------



## billd91

Eric V said:


> Do you really see that as a "6E" though?  Every time we've gotten a new edition, the changes have been substantive...maybe we're just using the terms differently.




Maybe that’s the problem. Edition changes in games like Call of Cthulhu are incremental, evolutionary. v7 is pretty different from v1, but it was a slow transformation to get there.

Some other games are strongly transformational like the shift from Villains and Vigilantes v1 to v2 or MegaTraveller to Traveller New Era. 

There’s no standard definition for what should be the appropriate bounds for a new edition.


----------



## Reynard

Mistwell said:


> In no way, in no interpretation of that thread by any reasoned, rational way, is "modular" part of what he's talking about when he says 5e is vaporware. Let's not give him any false defense - he's definitely, unquestionable NOT talking about the nature of the game. He is saying literally 5e would not happen. And then when it did happen, he's saying it was being run on a skeleton crew to barely keep it alive by just publishing the game with no support at all just to get something out there as a sort of placeholder to maintain their rights. So yes, let's be fair, and hold him accountable for what he actually said rather than what we can imagine to spin it as.




i wasn't defending the person. I didn't even read much of the post. I just remember that initially "5E will be modular" was a big portion of the hype and that never materialized. Now that the system is mature, though, I would not be surprised by a "Unearthed Arcana" type book with lots of dials and switches in another year or two.


----------



## Jer

Sacrosanct said:


> As I recall, those arguments weren't really about the differences in the mechanics though, but in design philosophy.  I.e., what upset people was how 2e "wussified" itself and sold out by removing the assassin, half orc, and demons.  The actual mechanical changes were largely welcomed.  THAC0 was official instead of how we just used it anyway, the bard class wasn't a mess, psionics were a lot better than what was in 1e, and thief skill progression (being allowed to have control) was much welcomed.  Priest spheres and specialty schools were also positively received.  And the monstrous manual was a huge hit.
> 
> That's what I remember anyway.




Eh - I remember it differently in my neck of the woods.  The things that you point out were certainly a part of it - there was very much an idea that the core books had an "attitude" towards the game that wasn't what the folks I knew who stuck with 1e felt like the game was "about".  They thought that 2e pushed the game more towards "rescue the princess" style gaming than they liked.  But there were other concerns that I can remember.  There was anger that the new classes from UA weren't fixed and included in the core rules.  There was irritation that the illusionist as a class disappeared and was replaced by something they thought was far lesser.  There was a general feeling that the edition as a whole wasn't well thought out and was kind of slapdash in production - especially the DMG.  And I remember a strong annoyance by a number of folks about the Monstrous Compendium format - because a whole page for a monster was wasted space that wasn't needed and felt like a "cash grab" when they could have fit far more monsters into a real book.

(Actually on that front I don't remember the new MC being universally loved outside of the pages of Dragon magazine, tbh - most of the people I gamed with - even the 2e converts - thought it was a stupid idea, that monsters didn't need that much space, that you never were going to be able to organize it properly anyway because you were printing on both sides of the page so you'd have monsters that would have to be out of order, and that having things in a binder meant that pages were more easily ripped and lost than in a book.)


----------



## Sacrosanct

Well, the binder sucked.  I'll give you that. I'm talking about the actual hardback monster manual.


----------



## Jer

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, the binder sucked.  I'll give you that. I'm talking about the actual hardback monster manual.




That was like 5 years later, wasn't it?  By that point I'd moved, so I dunno if they ever came around to playing 2e or not.  The objection to a whole page of "useless" info for a monster would still have been there for the book, though, so I suspect that unless they'd had a major shift in what they thought about the game (possible - I know I have had a number of them over the years) I think they'd have had the same objections.


----------



## darjr

As far as WotC willing to put money into D&D they just hired a “Lore Researcher”. And I think they are hiring software folks. Infrastructure kind of software folks.


----------



## Ancalagon

Mistwell said:


> In no way, in no interpretation of that thread by any reasoned, rational way, is "modular" part of what he's talking about when he says 5e is vaporware. Let's not give him any false defense - he's definitely, unquestionable NOT talking about the nature of the game. He is saying literally 5e would not happen. And then when it did happen, he's saying it was being run on a skeleton crew to barely keep it alive by just publishing the game with no support at all just to get something out there as a sort of placeholder to maintain their rights. So yes, let's be fair, and hold him accountable for what he actually said rather than what we can imagine to spin it as.



Why should we bother "holding someone to account " for some post made 7 years ago on some forum about some make believe game?


----------



## Mistwell

Ancalagon said:


> Why should we bother "holding someone to account " for some post made 7 years ago on some forum about some make believe game?




We shouldn't. I am not actually saying anything to him. I posted it as a joke, and was just surprised to see what looked like a defense of his position so decided to respond to it. But yeah, don't hold anyone accountable for something as silly as that. It's, as you imply, not important.


----------



## Retreater

Morrus said:


> Pathfinder is not gritty; it's very much high fantasy.



I would say that Paizo has had more "mature" content than WotC's D&D (in its current edition). Runelords alone is more gory, violent, and disturbing than even D&D's horror-themed campaign adventure. 
Then look at this monster, which is basically a rape demon. Yeah, Pathfinder is gritty. 




__





						Drakainia – d20PFSRD
					






					www.d20pfsrd.com


----------



## Ancalagon

Mistwell said:


> We shouldn't. I am not actually saying anything to him. I posted it as a joke, and was just surprised to see what looked like a defense of his position so decided to respond to it. But yeah, don't hold anyone accountable for something as silly as that. It's, as you imply, not important.



The fact that you quoted that 7 year old post... must have made an impression on  you ha.


----------



## Mistwell

Ancalagon said:


> The fact that you quoted that 7 year old post... must have made an impression on  you ha.




It'a that he continues that same position to today. All these years.


----------



## darjr

5e is a hoax! Ha!


----------



## cmad1977

Ancalagon said:


> The fact that you quoted that 7 year old post... must have made an impression on you ha.




When a person sees something so... incredibly... dumb, it makes an impression.


----------



## Dausuul

It is certainly too big for them to rush 6E. I expect that it will come in the mid-2020s, and it will be designed to be as backwards compatible as possible. In fact, my guess is that they will introduce a "variant PHB" or something like it, designed to replace the PHB while remaining 100% compatible with everything else. Kind of a stealth 6E.


----------



## Charlaquin

You know... I’ve given it some more thought, and I think 5e is big enough to last another 10 years. Which means it realistically _could_ be the last edition, if we haven’t gotten our act together environmentally by then.


----------



## Charlaquin

Retreater said:


> I would say that Paizo has had more "mature" content than WotC's D&D (in its current edition). Runelords alone is more gory, violent, and disturbing than even D&D's horror-themed campaign adventure.
> Then look at this monster, which is basically a rape demon. Yeah, Pathfinder is gritty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drakainia – d20PFSRD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.d20pfsrd.com



“Rape demon” doesn’t really say “gritty” to me, so much as “edgy.” Fortunately the writing of PF2 seems to be handled with more maturity.


----------



## Arnwolf666

darjr said:


> D&D Legend of Zelda!!!! Ohahoha!




Their are really good fan made PDF's for several editions of D&D including 5E.  I highly recommend checking them out if you are going to do a Hyrule setting.  Even the non-5E stuff is good for setting material.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Retreater said:


> I would say that Paizo has had more "mature" content than WotC's D&D (in its current edition). Runelords alone is more gory, violent, and disturbing than even D&D's horror-themed campaign adventure.
> Then look at this monster, which is basically a rape demon. Yeah, Pathfinder is gritty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drakainia – d20PFSRD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.d20pfsrd.com



Parasitoid, technically?  Like the Alien franchise.  Or traditional D&D Carrion Crawler, for that matter.


----------



## Zardnaar

Charlaquin said:


> You know... I’ve given it some more thought, and I think 5e is big enough to last another 10 years. Which means it realistically _could_ be the last edition, if we haven’t gotten our act together environmentally by then.




Na we will be playing 1E, those books will survive the apocalypse.


----------



## Charlaquin

Zardnaar said:


> Na we will be playing 1E, those books will survive the apocalypse.



You jest, but honestly when climate collapse throws us into the next dark age, what else are the survivors going to do to entertain themselves?


----------



## Zardnaar

Charlaquin said:


> You jest, but honestly when climate collapse throws us into the next dark age, what else are the survivors going to do to entertain themselves?




 I wasn't joking, my 1E DMG and one of the PHB have stitch binding, my original 5E PHB and MM have cracked binding. 

 Modern binding is cheap and nasty. Basically glued together.

 Early 1E books are probably good for a few hundred years.


----------



## darjr

I wish I could get a set of 5e books with stitch binding on 1e style paper. Beedle and Grimm do you hear me?

What is that paper called anyway?


----------



## Zardnaar

I would also pay a premium for stich binding phb.


----------



## Arnwolf666

Zardnaar said:


> Na we will be playing 1E, those books will survive the apocalypse.




I know several groups still playing ad&d 1E. And they have become quite good with their settings and sandboxes. Experience trumps edition any day for me.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Charlaquin said:


> You jest, but honestly when climate collapse throws us into the next dark age, what else are the survivors going to do to entertain themselves?



Deathsport?
Thunderdome?


----------



## Raith5

Tony Vargas said:


> Deathsport?
> Thunderdome?




Swimming


----------



## Charlaquin

Raith5 said:


> Swimming



This one took me a second, but damn!


----------



## S'mon

So, they caught lightning in a bottle with 5e. People love it - in particular, new players love it, because it gives them what they want and expect from D&D. If WoTC don't mess it up, D&D will remain extremely popular for many years to come, allowing for leveraging into other, more profitable areas - though I think PHB sales bring in a nice wodge of cash.

My expectation is that D&D will continue to do great for many years, but eventually there will be a personnel & cultural shift at WoTC, someone will say "Hey, we can make EVEN MORE MONEY if we..." - and the Golden Age will end.


----------



## Zardnaar

Well D&D is good for another 30 years even if it spirals downwards. Short of WotC going under or D&D killed off by corporate.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> but all those GenZ kids are just as likely to find a different hobby




I'm seeing the exact opposite - Gen Z maturing into D&D players with a game that is finally accessible to secondary school pupils (high school students) and playable theatre-of-the-mind on lunch break by my 12 year old son and his friends. And there is a huge hunger for real-world interaction that 5e is ideally placed to meet. 5e is vastly better suited to capturing the new generation coming up than 2e, 3e, or 4e ever were.

Back when I first joined a public D&D Meetup in 2008, 3e was still bringing in some young people, but they tended to be stereotypically 'nerdy' types and there was not a broad-based appeal. 4e basically did not bring in new gamers, more the reverse. In terms of recruitment about the only good thing I can say about 4e compared to 3e is that it attracted relatively more women players. But 5e brings in people from across a vast demographic in terms of age, both sexes, and a wide range of preferences re complexity, genre tone, etc etc.


----------



## S'mon

OB1 said:


> At least until Digital becomes the primary way that users consume the game




Will never happen. Being a real-world-interaction game is the TTRPG USP!


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> Will never happen. Being a real-world-interaction game is the TTRPG USP!



More and more people are playing online because it is easier and more convenient. I have a weekly game with 5 players living in 5 different states. I also have a weekly IRL game. Both are great.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> More and more people are playing online because it is easier and more convenient. I have a weekly game with 5 players living in 5 different states. I also have a weekly IRL game. Both are great.




I have an online game too - but it's not the core experience.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> I have an online game too - but it's not the core experience.



What does that even mean? The core experience is pretending to be an elf with your friends.


----------



## S'mon

Reynard said:


> What does that even mean? The core experience is pretending to be an elf with your friends.




Operative word "with"


----------



## Zardnaar

At least online you can't smell the FLGS.


----------



## darjr

I’m starting to think 5e is too big for 6e. I just ran a game and it had a lapsed 5e player. I then found a lot of them.

Not that the 5e player base was diminished. Every time I think I may have met most of the dnd players that play publicly around here, I run into a whole bunch of new folks.

These folks bought the PHB and played and loved it. Then life got in the way. Then WotC threw hell at them and they had to MAKE room to play. Lapsed as in they had old school style nostalgia for it. For 5e! It just seemed so weird.


----------



## OB1

S'mon said:


> Will never happen. Being a real-world-interaction game is the TTRPG USP!




I wasn't saying it won't be table top with real world interaction.  I was saying that digital purchase of the materials will replacing buying versions printed on dead trees.

The latest Essentials box is a perfect example of where the strategy is headed, with a physical intro to the game that encourages the use of the digital tools to expand the experience.


----------



## Ancalagon

Charlaquin said:


> You jest, but honestly when climate collapse throws us into the next dark age, what else are the survivors going to do to entertain themselves?




Troika.  It'a 2d6 system


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> More and more people are playing online because it is easier and more convenient. I have a weekly game with 5 players living in 5 different states. I also have a weekly IRL game. Both are great.




More, yes, still a fractional minority of people playing


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> More, yes, still a fractional minority of people playing



True, but "never happen" is a stretch. Telepresence get more advanced all the time.


----------



## Tony Vargas

S'mon said:


> - in particular, new players love it, because it gives them what they want and expect from D&D.



Genuinely-new players presumably want to find out "what this D&D thing is all about" but their expectations can't go much beyond "it's gonna be fantasy," and "there'll likely be a /dungeon/ with a /dragon/ in it, though that may be a little on the nose."  You could sit down a group of new players and run T&T, TFT, Rolemaster, or a dozen other clunky old TTFRPGs, and they'd likely have about the same reaction.  Unless there's some grizzled old RPG veteran there to snatch the scales from their eyes "OI! That's na' REALLY D&D!!!  Eubenhad!"

...of course, if you tried to palm off FATE or Hero or GURPS or Exalted or even 4e* on them, they'd all go into anaphylactic shock.



Zardnaar said:


> Well D&D is good for another 30 years even if it spirals downwards. Short of WotC going under or D&D killed off by corporate.



We'll still have the SRD, so someone else can just pick up the torch like Paizo did.









* an actionable tort in some states, for all I know.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Genuinely-new players presumably want to find out "what this D&D thing is all about" but their expectations can't go much beyond "it's gonna be fantasy," and "there'll likely be a /dungeon/ with a /dragon/ in it, though that may be a little on the nose."  You could sit down a group of new players and run T&T, TFT, Rolemaster, or a dozen other clunky old TTFRPGs, and they'd likely have about the same reaction.  Unless there's some grizzled old RPG veteran there to snatch the scales from their eyes "OI! That's na' REALLY D&D!!!  Eubenhad!"




I think you're vastly underestimating the importance, accessibility and pervasiveness of social media (much less the internet general) and especially streaming if you actually think new players can't have expectations beyond "fantasy with a dungeon and a dragon"...


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> I think you're vastly underestimating the importance, accessibility and pervasiveness of social media (much less the internet general) and especially streaming if you actually think new players can't have expectations beyond "fantasy with a dungeon and a dragon"...



 Hey, once you've /watched/ it played, you're not exactly new to it, are you?  It's not an expectation, anymore, it's an experience.  

But, sure, if you want to say 5e is meeting the expectations of new players who have read about 5e on line and watched streaming video of people playing 5e on line, yeah, I suspect it probably does...


----------



## robus

S'mon said:


> Back when I first joined a public D&D Meetup in 2008, 3e was still bringing in some young people, but they tended to be stereotypically 'nerdy' types and there was not a broad-based appeal. 4e basically did not bring in new gamers, more the reverse. In terms of recruitment about the only good thing I can say about 4e compared to 3e is that it attracted relatively more women players. But 5e brings in people from across a vast demographic in terms of age, both sexes, and a wide range of preferences re complexity, genre tone, etc etc.




My new younger group has no straight white men (except for me  ). My older group is 50/50 men and women.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> Hey, once you've /watched/ it played, you're not exactly new to it, are you?  It's not an expectation, anymore, it's an experience.
> 
> But, sure, if you want to say 5e is meeting the expectations of new players who have read about 5e on line and watched streaming video of people playing 5e on line, yeah, I suspect it probably does...




Wait so now watching a game or reading about it is akin to playing it?

Most younger people (I'm tempted to say most people in general) who want to try something new are going to at the very least google it and watch/read a few of the things that pop up. I think it's going to be a rare to non-existent player whose sole knowledge of D&D boils down to fantasy with a dungeon and a dragon... Again you seem to be vastly underestimating the ease with which info is available nowadays.


----------



## S'mon

robus said:


> My new younger group has no straight white men (except for me  ). My older group is 50/50 men and women.




Demographics are definitely broader now - in the UK that mostly means more female players, though I noticed when I joined a group playing Tomb of Annihilation there were a couple new black players, which didn't use to be common here. The female player later joined my own Meetup group, played in my campaign & became a friend of mine. Last I heard her Amazon Warrior PC Nemesis was 10th level. 

Recently a guy dropped in to play one of my D&D Meetup sessions. Afterwards my son turned to me, wide-eyed, and said:

"Daddy! That guy was a _nerd_!" 

10 years ago I can't quite imagine anyone remarking on a nerd playing D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> Wait so now watching a game or reading about it is akin to playing it?



It creates a different set of expectations about the game then merely knowing it exists, certainly.  (and, really, a game like D&D where you take your turn, then watch 5 other people play their turns, yeah, watching play really is kinda akin to actually playing, isn't it?  hadn't though of it that way before)

The more the 'new player' researches the game and gets accurate information about it, the more of a given it will be that the game will meet the expectations formed in those researches.

I mean, it's nice that there isn't a lot of misinformation about 5e choking the internet, and that players aren't sitting down expecting to be indoctrinated into a Satanic cult only to be bitterly disappointed when they find out there are no real spells in it, at all...
... but it's not a quality of 5e, itself, it's the quality of the available information. 

It is, OTOH, a quality of 5e that it meets expectations of returning players from the TSR era, fairly well, because it does, in it's mechanics and presentation, effectively evoke those past editions.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> It creates a different set of expectations about the game then merely knowing it exists, certainly.  (and, really, a game like D&D where you take your turn, then watch 5 other people play their turns, yeah, watching play really is kinda akin to actually playing, isn't it?  hadn't though of it that way before)
> 
> The more the 'new player' researches the game and gets accurate information about it, the more of a given it will be that the game will meet the expectations formed in those researches.
> 
> I mean, it's nice that there isn't a lot of misinformation about 5e choking the internet, and that players aren't sitting down expecting to be indoctrinated into a Satanic cult only to be bitterly disappointed when they find out there are no real spells in it, at all...
> ... but it's not a quality of 5e, itself, it's the quality of the available information.
> 
> It is, OTOH, a quality of 5e that it meets expectations of returning players from the TSR era, fairly well, because it does, in it's mechanics and presentation, effectively evoke those past editions.




If they google D&D watch a few streams, or read a few articles, even look at a few images they are going to know the difference between a D&D game vs. Tunnels and Trolls... that was my point, the rest of this I didn't comment on one way or another.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Imaro said:


> If they google D&D watch a few streams, or read a few articles, even look at a few images they are going to know the difference between a D&D game vs. Tunnels and Trolls...



If.


----------



## Imaro

Tony Vargas said:


> If.



 Which most new players are going to do.  It's about a dungeon and a dragon is setting the bar way lower than what the average new player is going to know about D&D plain and simple.


----------



## Parmandur

Imaro said:


> If they google D&D watch a few streams, or read a few articles, even look at a few images they are going to know the difference between a D&D game vs. Tunnels and Trolls... that was my point, the rest of this I didn't comment on one way or another.




Super off-topic, but....are there any good Tunnels & Trolls streams out there?


----------



## Imaro

Parmandur said:


> Super off-topic, but....are there any good Tunnels & Trolls streams out there?




Not that I'm aware of but I've never really looked for one since I don't play or run it.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

This time the strategy is different. It isn't about publishing more titles but selling more because there are new players. And I guess they are playtesting a lot of new crazy ideas. There is not psionic yet, and almost all the books are set in Forgotten Realms. 

My opinion is d20 Modern 2.0. will appear before 6th Ed. Maybe they want a d20 Modern videogame like Gamma World. 

And they are await to see the success of the coming-soon movie by Universal Pictures to choose the next step. Maybe the incarnum, the vestige pact magic and the martial adepts will be in the OSR, because they are in Pathfinder anyway.


----------



## darjr

On the eve of the release of Descent, the players handbook is 54 out of all books on Amazon. The 13th Adventure book, five years after its release.


----------

