# 6E When?



## Zardnaar

A few mentions of 6E have been made with some posters stating that 5E is an evergreen edition etc. 

 If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I woudnt take the designers quotes to literally but it does indicate that they want a long run for 5E. 

 Eventually 5E will hit saturation point. What I mean by that is they will hit a point if declining sales.  Broadly speaking everyone who wants a phb has one. After that you will have a decking amount of sales.
 Now the first time this happens on eBay I bet people will be chicken little in the forums. 

 I wouldn't worry unless it happens two years in a row or three. 

 Eventually this will happen or the new shiny feeling wears off or whatever. Might take 8, 10 or 13 years. 

 Another hint is splat books with all sorts if experimental, odd and new subsystems. 

 Anyway expect 6E about 2 years after they get 2 or 3 years of declining sales. 

 We're not there yet, even if 2019 is less than 2018 well probably know next year. 

 Sometime in the next 2-3 years I would not be surprised if that happens. 5E will be 10 years old in 2014. 

 So the absolute earliest would be 2022 or 2023 assuming 2019 and 2020 have decking sales. I don't think we're there yet so would put 2022/23 into the I would be surprised basket. 

 2024 would be the earliest I would expect to see 6E give or take a year. I don't expect 2013 but it's not to far out there. 

2024/25 is roughly my expectation. Would not be overly surprised 2026/2027. 

 Anything past that date would I would be surprised. Note that would be a 13 year cycle. No D&D has lasted that long with the exception of BECMI and that wasn't in continuous production and had very limited support. 

 The only thing we can really predict IMHO is the next few years. People move on, CEOs change, recessions happen.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

2024 Golden Anniversary Edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> A few mentions of 6E have been made with some posters stating that 5E is an evergreen edition etc.



Oh, there'll be a 6e.  It might not be called that - 5e is mainly called that by longtime fans - but there'll be new printings, and, eventually a new or 'special' edition.  Maybe it'll have slightly altered rules, maybe it'll just have cool or thematic art.  But it'll happen.  Someday.


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, there'll be a 6e.  It might not be called that - 5e is mainly called that by longtime fans - but there'll be new printings, and, eventually a new or 'special' edition.  Maybe it'll have slightly altered rules, maybe it'll just have cool or thematic art.  But it'll happen.  Someday.




I don't regard variant art as new edition. 

 If 5E is still going 2024 I expect some sort of 50th anniversary edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> I don't regard variant art as new edition.



If sales stabilize instead of fall off precipitously, it could go into that sort of perennial family-game (like Monopoly &c) model.


> If 5ae is still going 2024 I expect some sort of 50th anniversary edition.



Absolutely.  I'll try to live that long, just to see it.


----------



## FrogReaver

I dunno - they've not even done the relatively small things that can monetize an RPG with a huge base of players that have bought in to 5e.

I mean no PHB 2 yet.
No focused splat books.
No 5.5e redesign - which is what I honestly expect next before 6e at this point.
No increasing of the release cycle.

There's a lot of things we will see before we get anywhere near 6e IMO.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> I dunno - they've not even done the relatively small things that can monetize an RPG with a huge base of players that have bought in to 5e.
> 
> I mean no PHB 2 yet.
> No focused splat books.
> No 5.5e redesign - which is what I honestly expect next before 6e at this point.
> No increasing of the release cycle.
> 
> There's a lot of things we will see before we get anywhere near 6e IMO.




PHB2 will never happen, because WotC figured out it hurts their sales. Same thing with targeted books. Odd compilation books are where the money is, not slicing up the market.

They have increased the pace of release considerably: last year there were four hardcovers, this year there were four hardcovers and three new boxed sets.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> I don't regard variant art as new edition.




Then by that definition, there may never be another edition. Certainly, there will be a "6E", though it won't be marketed as such anymore than 5E is (look around, there is no marketing for 5E, anywhere, just "D&D": marketing an "Edition" has proven to be bad business).

As to when: either a 50th anniversary special in 2024 consolidating rules variants from 5E and tweaking the rules that are exceptions, not the base. If not then, then much, much later.


----------



## darjr

Eh, if it stays in the top 100 it’ll not go anywhere.


----------



## Sacrosanct

June 6, 2026. 666. Getting back to the satanic roots and scare that 1e created.


----------



## Shardstone

Hopefully never. Keep 5E evergreen and only do small updates on it. If D&D is to be super mainstream, you can't reinvent it all the time.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Not soon enough, that's for certain. I was ready for 6E in 2017.


----------



## Charlaquin

I won’t be surprised if revolution or climate collapse happen before 6e, and the chances of there ever being a 6e decrease dramatically after either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

50th Anniversary will see something big, but it won’t be a 6e by any reasonable standard. 

It will probably be less different than Essentials was from PHB 4e, and the two were completely compatible. 

More like a special edition reprint with slightly more aggressive errata. Possibly a rebuild of some unsatisfying options, but probably nothing even as dramatic as any given designer wants to do. 

DnD is Adv/Disadv, Bonus Actions, Bounded Accuracy, and Hit Dice, now. Full stop. WoTC’s goal has always been and will always be an edition of dnd that that becomes a household name that you can come back to twenty years later and it’s pretty much the same as when you left it, but with more options if you buy the expansions.


----------



## ccs

Charlaquin said:


> I won’t be surprised if revolution or climate collapse happen before 6e, and the chances of there ever being a 6e decrease dramatically after either.




I doubt the climate will collapse before summer 2024.
Revolution.....


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> 50th Anniversary will see something big, but it won’t be a 6e by any reasonable standard.
> 
> It will probably be less different than Essentials was from PHB 4e, and the two were completely compatible.
> 
> More like a special edition reprint with slightly more aggressive errata. Possibly a rebuild of some unsatisfying options, but probably nothing even as dramatic as any given designer wants to do.
> 
> DnD is Adv/Disadv, Bonus Actions, Bounded Accuracy, and Hit Dice, now. Full stop. WoTC’s goal has always been and will always be an edition of dnd that that becomes a household name that you can come back to twenty years later and it’s pretty much the same as when you left it, but with more options if you buy the expansions.




Crawford has increasingly been beating the drum of how D&D offers exception based design, around a tight core of rules. Makes it easy enough to just provide a new set of exceptions that can be plugged in or out with older options...


----------



## LordEntrails

Saelorn said:


> Not soon enough, that's for certain. I was ready for 6E in 2017.



I doubt you will be happy with whatever 6E turns out to be.


----------



## Don Durito

I believe Mearls has said that they'll do a 6th edition when the flaws in 5E have become annoying and obvious enough to the player base to make one necessary (or something to that effect).

And also that he really doesn't want to contemplate it.


----------



## Don Durito

One thing I'm certain of is that the difference between 6e and 5e will probably be more like the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 or 1e and 2e, rather than say 3.5 to 4e or 4e to 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar

Yeah I'm expecting evolution over revolution.


----------



## Parmandur

Don Durito said:


> One thing I'm certain of is that the difference between 6e and 5e will probably be more like the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 or 1e and 2e, rather than say 3.5 to 4e or 4e to 5e.




Less extreme than that, more like B/X and BECMI, I reckon.


----------



## Shiroiken

At the given rate, I'd expect a minor revision to 5E at about the 10 year mark, possibly in line with the 50th anniversary. It would probably fix a few known issues, such as putting out a good revised ranger, similar to what 3.5 did. It's possible this happens before 2024, but I doubt it. The new start set is really good (so I hear, I've yet to see it), which will help revitalize new players. They've started adding in more options, and hinting at more settings (although I think Eberron was handled badly by putting out a pdf, then a completely different book), which should keep sales at an acceptable pace, if not quite as strong as they've been in prior years.

After this... I don't know. if the revision is successful, it could be another 10 years. If not, it could die in a year or so. I strongly suspect that the success of the D&D Next playtest means that the revised edition or 6E would follow the same process, giving us a few years advanced warning.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Charlaquin said:


> I won’t be surprised if revolution or climate collapse happen before 6e, and the chances of there ever being a 6e decrease dramatically after either.



Revolution might not hurt its chances as badly as all that.  

Though I guess it depends on how revolting.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ccs said:


> I doubt the climate will collapse before summer 2024.



Not through lack of trying


----------



## Zardnaar

Darksun the LARP.


----------



## teitan

I think the 50th anniversary will see a revision of the core books with slight variation, yes the ranger, some of the more well received subclasses, additional spells and the like. I think the days of “editions” are truly over. Closer to a 3.25 than a full 3.5. More akin to 2e Revised.


----------



## Krachek

Never.
Officially they get rid of edition.
I think they will try very hard to avoid go back on edition iteration.
Maybe we will have a revisited phb.
But with a 100% compatibility with the actual one.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My bet is "after d20 Modern 2.0.". WotC may be playtesting to create the ultimate universal d20 system for all genres (survival horror, warzone, mechas, kaijus hunt, superheros, planetary romance..). 

This remake of d20 Modern could break sacred cow as the six abilities scores, adding more (courage, astuteness, grace, talent..) or background levels.


----------



## generic

I agree with other posters who have mentioned WotC's new strategy.

I don't honestly think WotC will ever, as long as they keep drawing in new players, remove 5e from the market.

They simply don't yet know whether or not they'll lose players by performing another "edition switch".

As long as ideas for 5e splatbooks continue to be pumped out, and a D&D book of any kind stays within the top 100 books on Amazon or whatever, WotC will recognize that their new player base is more willing to collect 5e splatbooks than switch to a new edition.

The most depressing thing about this is that 5e is already starting to produce ludicrously broken and unreasonably weak character options, and the designers outright refuse to recognize them as the pressing issues that they are.

Consider the Yuan-Ti Pureblood, and unreasonably powerful race.  It was made in VGtM, the first 5e splatbook, which also contained the unreasonably weak Orc and Kobold races.

Consider the Ranger, which has since been revised.  However, the revised ranger has not been released to the non-unearthed-arcana-reading public, which is stuck with the ordinary ranger.

There are already strictly better and strictly worse archetypes for more than one class.

I do love 5e, I actually think it's the most balanced edition yet, but it certainly isn't willing to admit (well, it's designers aren't willing to admit) its obvious flaws.

Though, I do have to thank Mearls for acknowledging that bonus actions are broken.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> PHB2 will never happen, because WotC figured out it hurts their sales. Same thing with targeted books. Odd compilation books are where the money is, not slicing up the market.
> 
> They have increased the pace of release considerably: last year there were four hardcovers, this year there were four hardcovers and three new boxed sets.




Curious on how you see a PHB2 slicing the market.  I understand the targeted books.  But a PHB2 doesn't seem to be a targeted book to me?


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> Curious on how you see a PHB2 slicing the market.  I understand the targeted books.  But a PHB2 doesn't seem to be a targeted book to me?




Yeah, that part of the comment was more at the targeted spat book model.

The issue with the PHB2 is that it confuses customers, creates frustration and lost players and sales in the long run. WotC has gone into detail about that specifically before. XGtE serves as both a de facto PHB2 and DMG2, while avoiding any confusion.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, that part of the comment was more at the targeted spat book model.
> 
> The issue with the PHB2 is that it confuses customers, creates frustration and lost players and sales in the long run.




So It's just the name that potentially confuses people, not the content.



> WotC has gone into detail about that specifically before. XGtE serves as both a de facto PHB2 and DMG2, while avoiding any confusion.




XGtE is nothing like a PHB2 would be.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

I don't think we'll see an edition referred to by WotC as 6th edition. Certainly not as any kind official terminology.

5E is huge, and what's more, it's huge with a lot of people who didn't play OD&D, or 1E through 4E, or played one of them way back when (remembering that even, say, 2000-2004 is "way back when" now, as much as it was the future when I first started posting on Eric Noah's old black board), and only just recently came back. So most of the playerbase isn't excited by or keen on an edition change. They're keen on just "playing D&D". That means continuity and that means backwards compatibility of a strong kind.

I expect what we may actually see is a new-look rulebook and so on in 2024, with some rules changes/updates/clarifications backed into the text, new art, new formatting, and so on. Possibly a new Ranger. But I don't think the changes will be much, if at all, bigger than 3E to 3.5E. So that will effectively be 5.5E. There may well be extra rules, especially optional ones, which you can bolt on, but fundamental changes? Nah.

I guess I sort of agree with Zardnaar in that an actual 6E, a genuine edition-change level of change, will not happen until/unless 5E sales significantly decline. And I think WotC will actually be even more sensitive than that. I think they will wait until people actually seem bored with 5E. Not just not buying it because of saturation. I think saturation will hit years before 6E comes out. I think they'll wait for people to stop playing because of actual boredom and so on, start missing D&D, and then bring out a 6E. And this time there's no doubt they'll fully integrate online stuff, and be ready to go with all that, themselves, for maximum profit, day 1. And I would expect that to contain significant and fundamental rules-changes. But I think we're looking at the other end of the 2020s at the earliest - before 2026 definitely not. 2028-2030? Maybe. They can appeal to the nostalgia of 40-somethings we started with 3E as teenagers and now have kids and stuff... (yes, we will be that old - 15 in 2001 would make you 44 in 2030).

But they probably still won't call it 6E. I'm sure some devious marketing team will come up with something to replace that, and make it clear "this is your daddy's D&D, but also your D&D".



FrogReaver said:


> XGtE is nothing like a PHB2 would be.




Really? The material is more or less exactly what I'd expect in a PHB2. I suspect your definition of PHB2 is highly specific and you might want to explain to other people what it is.


----------



## OB1

A new edition will happen only if the cost of attracting a new player to 5e becomes greater than the lifetime value of the player to hasbro and all other methods of attracting new players at a cost less than LV are exhausted.  

Creating a new edition is both expensive and not a guarantee of success.  Whereas creating new supplements (Rick&Mority, Stranger Things, Ravnica, Ebberon, Avernus) that also fuel PHB sales to new players allows for constant adjustment without the need to start over from scratch.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> So It's just the name that potentially confuses people, not the content.




The name is confusing, yes, bit they don't want to narrow the content to be overly specific either. They had a lot of data showing that the 4E model confused customers, making people think the PHB 2 or 3 were the place to start, because higher numbers are better. Hence, they have said they will never use the name again.




FrogReaver said:


> XGtE is nothing like a PHB2 would be.




Sure it is. New Class options, new Background material, new Feats, new player options abound. It's as close as anything will come, at the very least.


----------



## dave2008

doctorbadwolf said:


> DnD is Adv/Disadv, Bonus Actions, Bounded Accuracy, and Hit Dice, now. Full stop.



I wonder about that.  Mike Mearls has talked about getting rid of bonus actions several times.  I could see 5,5e with updated classes that don't use bonus actions.  The would still be compatible with 5e, just with bonus actions taken out.


----------



## dave2008

LordEntrails said:


> I doubt you will be happy with whatever 6E turns out to be.



That's the the thing for me.  I know whatever changes are made for 6e, will not be the changes I want.  I am perfectly happy with 5e as is and just applying my few house rules.  The changes I would want beyond that are so far outside the pale of D&D that I know it will never come to pass.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

dave2008 said:


> I wonder about that.  Mike Mearls has talked about getting rid of bonus actions several times.  I could see 5,5e with updated classes that don't use bonus actions.  The would still be compatible with 5e, just with bonus actions taken out.




This is highly implausible.

Bonus actions are too deeply embedded in 5E to simply be removed and "remain compatible". Every single book with mechanics has tons of stuff that uses bonus actions, so you'd have to errata all of them, and even adventures and stuff too. It's not something you could "neatly remove". That Mike Mearls has talked about getting rid of it doesn't mean it's reasonable or doable. I love Mike but sometimes he just talks smack. Plus I'm not sure there's an appetite for such a move from players.

Getting rid of bonus actions would have to be part of a real edition change, with new books all around.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> The name is confusing, yes, bit they don't want to narrow the content to be overly specific either. They had a lot of data showing that the 4E model confused customers, making people think the PHB 2 or 3 were the place to start, because higher numbers are better. Hence, they have said they will never use the name again.




That's just an issue with the name - not the kind of content that's in it.  



> Sure it is. New Class options, new Background material, new Feats, new player options abound. It's as close as anything will come, at the very least.




There were no new classes in xanathar's.  You won't see 6e till they cross that bridge IMO.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> That's just an issue with the name - not the kind of content that's in it.




Well, they have said the content was also a problem, which is why they experimented with XGtE, an experiment that has paid off wildly in terms of cash money (XGtE is one of the best selling non core books in D&D history, and is still wildly outselling everything as a two year old book).

I'm not just bringing in the PHB2 to XGtE comparison myself, WotC has said explicitly that the XGtE style of content was brought in to replace the PHB2 approach (Mearls, whenever he is asked about the possibility.of a PHB2, for instance).



FrogReaver said:


> There were no new classes in xanathar's.  You won't see 6e till they cross that bridge IMO.




There were 28 new Subclasses, the real character building unit of note in 5E, and several more reprints. Other than not having new main Classes, in what way was XGtE not both a full PHB2 and DMG2?


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is highly implausible.
> 
> Bonus actions are too deeply embedded in 5E to simply be removed and "remain compatible". Every single book with mechanics has tons of stuff that uses bonus actions, so you'd have to errata all of them, and even adventures and stuff too. It's not something you could "neatly remove". That Mike Mearls has talked about getting rid of it doesn't mean it's reasonable or doable. I love Mike but sometimes he just talks smack. Plus I'm not sure there's an appetite for such a move from players.
> 
> Getting rid of bonus actions would have to be part of a real edition change, with new books all around.



Let me clarify what I meant.  First I haven't given this much thought, but that idea is that bonus actions would still "exist," you don't change any of that.  However, you create a whole new set of classes that don't use them.  These new classes would be balanced with 5e classes and can be played right along side of them, but they don't use bonus actions.  Remember, you don't get a bonus action unless a feature says you do.  The only thing you would need to change is to errata two-weapon fighting and you should be good to go ( I think, like I said I haven't given it much thought).

Finally, this is not something I am personally interested in so I am not really going to think about it any more.  I am more interested in creating a 6-action economy for my next game, not limiting actions to move and standard.


----------



## Shardstone

The closest thing we will get to a 6E IMO is a new Xanathar's book that has alternative class features (for patching and updating classes and creating "new classes" by editing old ones), new spells, new archetypes that work with the new class features, and some new alternate rules like those in the DMG. Making 6E an optional buy in, a remix of 5E, and still requiring you to buy the PHB to make it work without using a terrible name like PHB2.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Well, they have said the content was also a problem, which is why they experimented with XGtE, an experiment that has paid off wildly in terms of cash money (XGtE is one of the best selling non core books in D&D history, and is still wildly outselling everything as a two year old book).
> 
> I'm not just bringing in the PHB2 to XGtE comparison myself, WotC has said explicitly that the XGtE style of content was brought in to replace the PHB2 approach (Mearls, whenever he is asked about the possibility.of a PHB2, for instance).




And I'm saying that they can spin it and justify it however they want - when push comes to shove and 5e is in decline they will make books they aren't making now in an attempt to lengthen it's lifespan.

There's simply to much risk inherent in creating a 6e for the reward to outweight the risk - at least for the forseeable future.



> There were 28 new Subclasses, the real character building unit of note in 5E, and several more reprints. Other than not having new main Classes, in what way was XGtE not both a full PHB2 and DMG2?




What I'm talking about is a book that has new main classes.  You are just talking past me.

A PHB2 (or PHB2 like book) is a book that has new main classes.


----------



## FrogReaver

PointOfIsnpiration said:


> The closest thing we will get to a 6E IMO is a new Xanathar's book that has alternative class features (for patching and updating classes and creating "new classes" by editing old ones), new spells, new archetypes that work with the new class features, and some new alternate rules like those in the DMG. Making 6E an optional buy in, a remix of 5E, and still requiring you to buy the PHB to make it work without using a terrible name like PHB2.




That's not something anyone here would consider a 6e IMO.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Now the plan is a concept only can be a base class only if it is enough open to allow subclass.

If some PC race is broken, maybe there is an option, to replace racial traits with racial feats. This works in Pathfinder 2.

I see now the strategy to sell more isn't to publish more titles but to get new fans. They want a board game where parents can play with their children. Later they will publish more franchises, maybe Fortnite.

Maybe Hasbro buys a 3rd company to help WotC, or a videogame studio.  If we see a 5.5 Ed will not as books, but as videogame, like a playtesting for modules (sidekicks, monster pets, crafting, building a stronghold, sieges, battleships, mass battles, gardening pokemons for a plants vs zombies....).

Other possibility is we will not a 6th Edition really, but a advanced 5th with optional modules.

If there is a 6th will be after the d20 Modern 2.0. and this after the return of Spelljammer.

And we have to remember WotC's plans can change according the success of the Hasbro franchises as cinema blockbusters.  To be a famous IP isn't enough.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> And I'm saying that they can spin it and justify it however they want - when push comes to shove and 5e is in decline they will make books they aren't making now in an attempt to lengthen it's lifespan




Why would they put out products that are bad for business to drum up business? The point is, the PHB 2 format isn't something WotC will ever repeat as such, because such a book is not a sound financial decision. Sure, they'll put out books to drum up interest, but they will follow a successful model, not a failed format.




FrogReaver said:


> What I'm talking about is a book that has new main classes. You are just talking past me.
> 
> A PHB2 (or PHB2 like book) is a book that has new main classes.




Alright, so by that definition either Eberron: Rising from the Last War is a PHB2 (which, actually, it is both a PHB4, DMG3, and MM5 I'd say for sure), or there will not ever be a PHB2 again. They have maybe one new full Class in the future of the game, Subclasses are where development and expansion are at in D&D now.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> That's not something anyone here would consider a 6e IMO.




Then by this definition, there will never be a 6E.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Then by this definition, there will never be a 6E.




Why?  I think there will, but it's far and nearly unpredictable for when it will come.

5e will have to be in severely declined state (not just declining) and they will have had to try numerous other tactics to monetize it before giving up on it.  

The most likely cause is that a game most everyone likes better comes out.  That would be a surefire way to drive 5e to a true 6e.  

Another possibility is that it's been out too long and people just get bored of it.  Making a books of new classes and player options helps with this but still will likely ultimately fail.  A true 6e will reinvigorate the community at that time - and who really knows how much actually preferences and tastes will have changed in the many years between 5e and 6e.  I think they will do another long set of playtests etc.  I think that 6e will be a significant change from 5e.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Why would they put out products that are bad for business to drum up business? The point is, the PHB 2 format isn't something WotC will ever repeat as such, because such a book is not a sound financial decision. Sure, they'll put out books to drum up interest, but they will follow a successful model, not a failed format.




When your game is in decline, then anything to boost the businsss around it is a sound business decision.



> Alright, so by that definition either Eberron: Rising from the Last War is a PHB2 (which, actually, it is both a PHB4, DMG3, and MM5 I'd say for sure), or there will not ever be a PHB2 again. They have maybe one new full Class in the future of the game, Subclasses are where development and expansion are at in D&D now.




That's not a PHB2 either.  I understand that subclasses are the goal NOW and for the forseeable future.  But for us to get to a true 6e then 5e has to be in a significantly declined state.  If 5e is in that state then they will attempt strategies to save 5e first.  One strategy at that time is likely to involve more classes to drum up excitement from long time 5e fans.  Bored fans tend to not buy new books of any kind afterall.  I think it's only after they have pulled out all the stops of trying to save 5e that we will see a 6e.

So the kinds of WOTC indicators to me that 6e is anywhere near are still
1.  PHB2 style book
2.  5.5e style system upgrade
3.  Focused splat books
4.  increasing release cycle


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> Why?  I think there will, but it's far and nearly unpredictable for when it will come.
> 
> 5e will have to be in severely declined state (not just declining) and they will have had to try numerous other tactics to monetize it before giving up on it.
> 
> The most likely cause is that a game most everyone likes better comes out.  That would be a surefire way to drive 5e to a true 6e.
> 
> Another possibility is that it's been out too long and people just get bored of it.  Making a books of new classes and player options helps with this but still will likely ultimately fail.  A true 6e will reinvigorate the community at that time - and who really knows how much actually preferences and tastes will have changed in the many years between 5e and 6e.  I think they will do another long set of playtests etc.  I think that 6e will be a significant change from 5e.




Sure, there will eventually be something that is listed as the 6th edition of the game in the fine print, but I seriously doubt WotC will ever publish a D&D that isn't built on the basis of 5E, particularly if they follow the playtest method that you suggest they will.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> When your game is in decline, then anything to boost the businsss around it is a sound business decision.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a PHB2 either.  I understand that subclasses are the goal NOW and for the forseeable future.  But for us to get to a true 6e then 5e has to be in a significantly declined state.  If 5e is in that state then they will attempt strategies to save 5e first.  One strategy at that time is likely to involve more classes to drum up excitement from long time 5e fans.  Bored fans tend to not buy new books of any kind afterall.  I think it's only after they have pulled out all the stops of trying to save 5e that we will see a 6e.




Why would they put out a book that is proven not to drum up business (indeed, demonstrated to depress business) for the purpose of drumming up business? That's a contradiction of terms, and no business conditions will change the logical terms to make that circle square.

I doubt there will be that level of boredom any time soon, and at any rate they will do what other properties (like Monopoly) do when trying to receive interest and go for something like Star Wars D&D or Zelda D&D, rather than something illogical like a PHB2.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Sure, there will eventually be something that is listed as the 6th edition of the game in the fine print, but I seriously doubt WotC will ever publish a D&D that isn't built on the basis of 5E, particularly if they follow the playtest method that you suggest they will.




Do you think a playtest 10 years from now would yield the same game as a playtest done when wotc was making D&D next?


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> Do you think a playtest 10 years from now would yield the same game as a playtest done when wotc was making D&D next?




Yes.

Essentially, I would see the differences mostly in the exceptions-based portions of the rules, not the core. Consolidating options accrued across the then-15 year history of 5E, cut some Subclasses, add a few others. But no major changes.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Why would they put out a book that is proven not to drum up business (indeed, demonstrated to depress business) for the purpose of drumming up business? That's a contradiction of terms, and no business conditions will change the logical terms to make that circle square.




I don't believe that's true - but even then - it's a risk vs reward calculation.  Easier to try the hail mary in the current system than start from scratch in a new system.



> I doubt there will be that level of boredom any time soon, and at any rate they will do what other properties do when trying to receive interest and go for something like Star Wars D&D or Zelda D&D, rather than something illogical like a PHB2.




First of all, I agree its no time soon - which has been my point that its even further off than predicted because we don't have any indicators we could expect to see to show it's relatively close.

The problem with D&D licensing other settings is a financial one.  It doesn't make a lot of sense business wise IMO.  Do it when D&D is at it's peak and you potentially split the playerbase.  Attempt it when it's decline and it's a much harder deal to reach - and ultimately the math has to make sense to try and save players with a licensed setting while losing money on the licensing of the setting.  While it would be cool to see - I'm not sure that's a business model that makes sense to D&D - especially a D&D in decline.


----------



## Shardstone

FrogReaver said:


> That's not something anyone here would consider a 6e IMO.



You're right, but everyone else's idea of a 6E would probably severely damage D&D's current mainstream success.


----------



## FrogReaver

Parmandur said:


> Yes.
> 
> Essentially, I would see the differences mostly in the exceptions-based portions of the rules, not the core. Consolidating options accrued across the then-15 year history of 5E, cut some Subclasses, add a few others. But no major changes.




I think peoples tastes change


----------



## FrogReaver

PointOfIsnpiration said:


> You're right, but everyone else's idea of a 6E would probably severely damage D&D's current mainstream success.




Which is another reason we won't see a 6e till 5e has declined to the point that the reward of making a 6e is now greater than the risk of losing whatever success of 5e that remains (which is a long way off IMO).  That's another reason that I think they will attempt to save 5e in any way imaginable before going forward with a 6e.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> I don't believe that's true - but even then - it's a risk vs reward calculation. Easier to try the hail mary in the current system than start from scratch in a new system




On what basis do you believe it's not true that the serial PHB format was a business failure?


----------



## Vael

dave2008 said:


> I wonder about that.  Mike Mearls has talked about getting rid of bonus actions several times.  I could see 5,5e with updated classes that don't use bonus actions.  The would still be compatible with 5e, just with bonus actions taken out.




He also reversed himself, saying that his main issue with bonus actions is he doesn't like how it works with dual-wielding. This is a more limited patch/errata, but even this proud nail will probably survive until a theoretical 6e.


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> I think peoples tastes change




The results of the Next playtest suggest otherwise. And the tastes may not change if the people change, and the new people have the same taste for what came before.

Any crowdsourced playtest is going to come up with an essentially conservative result, only allowing really compelling new ideas in.

I could see, for example, a shift where all Subclasses are chosen at Level 1 across the board. But nothing substantial will change if people can vote on it.


----------



## Parmandur

Vael said:


> He also reversed himself, saying that his main issue with bonus actions is he doesn't like how it works with dual-wielding. This is a more limited patch/errata, but even this proud nail will probably survive until a theoretical 6e.




He finally concluded that the change he would want to see would be in the Equipment feature description, not the action economy.


----------



## darjr

So here's the deal. Xanathar's is 266 in all books at Amazon.

If they can do that with a supplement, say every couple of years, 5e will probably never go away. It'd probably take a HUGE misstep at Hasbro or WotC.


----------



## Nebulous

Yeah, I had started a thread about 6e a while back.  I was predicting 5 years, so 2024 or 2025.  I'm personally a little burned out from the game and want something crunchier, and I had hoped PF2 scratched that, but it didn't work for me.  I think before an actual reboot we will see a repackaged core book set with some tweaked rules maybe.  I would personally love to see a 5.5 edition.


----------



## MoonSong

Zardnaar said:


> A few mentions of 6E have been made with some posters stating that 5E is an evergreen edition etc.
> 
> If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I woudnt take the designers quotes to literally but it does indicate that they want a long run for 5E.
> 
> Eventually 5E will hit saturation point. What I mean by that is they will hit a point if declining sales.  Broadly speaking everyone who wants a phb has one. After that you will have a decking amount of sales.
> Now the first time this happens on eBay I bet people will be chicken little in the forums.
> 
> I wouldn't worry unless it happens two years in a row or three.
> 
> Eventually this will happen or the new shiny feeling wears off or whatever. Might take 8, 10 or 13 years.
> 
> Another hint is splat books with all sorts if experimental, odd and new subsystems.
> 
> Anyway expect 6E about 2 years after they get 2 or 3 years of declining sales.
> 
> We're not there yet, even if 2019 is less than 2018 well probably know next year.
> 
> Sometime in the next 2-3 years I would not be surprised if that happens. 5E will be 10 years old in 2014.
> 
> So the absolute earliest would be 2022 or 2023 assuming 2019 and 2020 have decking sales. I don't think we're there yet so would put 2022/23 into the I would be surprised basket.
> 
> 2024 would be the earliest I would expect to see 6E give or take a year. I don't expect 2013 but it's not to far out there.
> 
> 2024/25 is roughly my expectation. Would not be overly surprised 2026/2027.
> 
> Anything past that date would I would be surprised. Note that would be a 13 year cycle. No D&D has lasted that long with the exception of BECMI and that wasn't in continuous production and had very limited support.
> 
> The only thing we can really predict IMHO is the next few years. People move on, CEOs change, recessions happen.



I think we need to separate two ideas of what an edition is. If we go by an edition as understood in books in general, I would give it or take a couple of years -5/7 at most -. Now, if we think of edition as a ruleset, my prediction is not in a long, long time.  


ccs said:


> Revolution.....



Reality looks more and more like the plot of "Shattered Union", it's scary.


----------



## Parmandur

So, here's the thing: WotC Target audience is not veteran players who've played the game for 20+ years: most of the people playing 5E now, per WotC statements, were in Middle School and younger when 3E rolled out. They are selling to Middle Schoolers, High Schoolers, and College students. Older players are a nice-to-gave, frosting on the cake deal at best.

Ten Speed Press is paying Wizards good money to put out D&D propaganda to kids. Watching my toddler delight in seeing an Oelvear in the children's monster book they put out while holding an Oelvear toy is pretty great. Give it ten years, she'll be playing the game with other kids. Those kids will have no reason to be bored with an "old edition."


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

The TTRPGs have got two parts, the crunch and the fluff. I think the goal for 5th Ed to sell more wasn't to publish more titles but get a higher number of players, and then the rules had to be easy to understand. It has been designed for parents playing with their children, the next generation of fans. 

The fluff, lore or background of the D&D worlds have got future. Do remember Transformers were forgotten until Michael Bay's movies. My little pony was past until the reboot on television. But they have to learn to create the right blockbuster in the main media. Warner is a big fish and DC, maybe its best IP, isn't so popular as Marvel cinematic universe. And this failed in the past until the first Blade movie.... and the teleserie was only a season, ended with a cliffhanger. 

They aren't going to start to build a new tower when they are still in the first one. Now it is the time to publish remake of old D&d worlds (Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Kara-Tur, al-Quadim, Mystara, Ravenloft). Later they will publish new base classes. 

* My suggestion is to recover the chronomancers and the time spheres from AD&D for a new transition setting about uchronies and parallel earths.


----------



## darjr

Good point, there is a ton of content they can still explore. Shoot only now are they really getting to the outer planes.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

dave2008 said:


> I am more interested in creating a 6-action economy for my next game, not limiting actions to move and standard.



This _really_ has my interest. Maybe show your design and ideas and get input in another thread?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> So, here's the thing: WotC Target audience is not veteran players who've played the game for 20+ years:



Not their only audience, no, but a critical one.  It's their reaction to a new edition that can encourage people to try it - or turn the environment around it toxic.
5e made a lot if compromises to keep that segment happy, and rolling rev, again - especially, with any changes, let alone improvements, risks that accomplishment.
At some point enough of them will stop paying attention or just die - but, by then, the current crop will have likely been winnowed of any not equally insistent on the status quo.

So my prediction - and, I hasten to admit, I have never been right with one of these before - is that we will most likely see no substantive changes to the game for the foreseeable future, any new editions will be mainly cosmetic or y'know "re-arranging deck chairs." The analogy to 2e Revised was a good one.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

FrogReaver said:


> When your game is in decline, then anything to boost the businsss around it is a sound business decision.




Definitely not true for a large corporation with valuable IPs, and WotC is owned by Hasbro, and D&D and its settings are (interestingly) increasingly valuable IPs.

There are situations where it would be much smarter to let D&D decline somewhat (even severely) in the shorter-term in order to retain IP value and potential revival in the longer-term. There are plenty of moves which my boost business in the short-term but have bad consequences in the longer-term.



dave2008 said:


> Let me clarify what I meant.  First I haven't given this much thought, but that idea is that bonus actions would still "exist," you don't change any of that.  However, you create a whole new set of classes that don't use them.  These new classes would be balanced with 5e classes and can be played right along side of them, but they don't use bonus actions.  Remember, you don't get a bonus action unless a feature says you do.  The only thing you would need to change is to errata two-weapon fighting and you should be good to go ( I think, like I said I haven't given it much thought).
> 
> Finally, this is not something I am personally interested in so I am not really going to think about it any more.  I am more interested in creating a 6-action economy for my next game, not limiting actions to move and standard.




Fair enough, and I'd be interested to read about  your 6-action economy, but you're grossly underestimating the number of places bonus actions are used (they permeate virtually every aspect of the game), and creating bonus-action-less versions of the classes would be a huge task and create a lot of similar-but-different classes which I don't think would go down well. It seems like a huge amount of work for virtually no gain.


----------



## NineLizards

I don't need a 6.0 or even a 5.5 yet. But witch the much larger market (as compared with a number of years ago) and the amount of experience with 5.0 I could live with a 5.1, something with errata included, a reworked PHB with some new better clarified text, some new artwork, a few extra classes / feats / skills, all in that new PHB. As long as there are new players incoming they would be buying the slightly newer, slightly better version, and so would many of the existing players, just to keep up to date (and replace an older, battered PHB). In a way, if the new rules / improvements are presented as 'optional', 'suggested' etcetera, and they would keep 5.0 and 5.1 rule compatible (like the Basic Rules and the PHB) it might actually even increase sales, as many older PHB's just might be passed on to relatives / friends / siblings increasing the user base.

Same goes for the DMG. I've been comparing the 4e and 5e DMG lately, and I think the 5e PHB could definitely use a reworking, even more so than the PHB.

And, of course, don't try to repack it as '5e Essentials', we've seen what happened to D&D with '4e Essentials'...

So don't give me 5.0 Essentials, nor 5.5 nor 6.0. Give me 5.1


----------



## Zardnaar

They won't make a .5 edition again or phb2. 

 Xanathars is more like 2E Tome of Magic. 

 They might make a phb2 type book but it will be called something else.


----------



## Tony Vargas

blueznl said:


> And, of course, don't try to repack it as '5e Essentials', we've seen what happened ...



  Amusingly, there's already a 5e product called "Essentials." 

No worries.  Just like 5e fighters _actually cast spells_ to no controversey whatsoever. 

Heck, 5e, like 3.5 did, could probably get away with a PH2.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Not their only audience, no, but a critical one.  It's their reaction to a new edition that can encourage people to try it - or turn the environment around it toxic.
> 5e made a lot if compromises to keep that segment happy, and rolling rev, again - especially, with any changes, let alone improvements, risks that accomplishment.
> At some point enough of them will stop paying attention or just die - but, by then, the current crop will have likely been winnowed of any not equally insistent on the status quo.
> 
> So my prediction - and, I hasten to admit, I have never been right with one of these before - is that we will most likely see no substantive changes to the game for the foreseeable future, any new editions will be mainly cosmetic or y'know "re-arranging deck chairs." The analogy to 2e Revised was a good one.




That's true enough: what they found is that continuity sells better than radical change, even for the young and new.

The youth are the ones doing most of the spending and playing, though, and the future youth will be the target audience for any future edition: and they won't be tired of old mechanics, because as NBC said, if you haven't seen it, it's new for you!


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> That's true enough: what they found is that continuity sells better than radical change, even for the young and new.



Not what I said.  Continuity means nothing to the new player, they've yet to experience it.  
Not does continuity preclude substantive improvement or gradual change... heck, 5e /is/ gradually being changed and added to.

If there's a general case, here, it's not that, it's the tricky business of balancing acceptability to an established (geeky, nigh 'cult') base, without which you will have nerdrage/controversy and accessibility to the mainstream, without which you have few potential new customers.

WotC threaded that needle, this time.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Not what I said.  Continuity means nothing to the new player, they've yet to experience it.
> Not does continuity preclude substantive improvement or gradual change... heck, 5e /is/ gradually being changed and added to.
> 
> If there's a general case, here, it's not that, it's the tricky business of balancing acceptability to an established (geeky, nigh 'cult') base, without which you will have nerdrage/controversy and accessibility to the mainstream, without which you have few potential new customers.
> 
> WotC threaded that needle, this time.




But the potential new customers, the youth, don't come from a vacuum. I didn't play D&D until college, but there were cultural elements going back through my childhood, through video games particularly. WotC is being extremely proactive about cultivating tomorrow's player base right now.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> But the potential new customers, the youth, don't come from a vacuum. I didn't play D&D until college, but there were cultural elements going back through my childhood, through video games particularly.



Nod, and MMOs, because both ripped off D&D.  But, if WotC were to maximize accessibility to new players coming from that end of the broader genre, they'd outrage enough of their fan base to create that toxic controversy that'd keep those potential new players away.

I'm sorry,  I just phrased that as a hypothetical, when we all know it already happened 10 years ago.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Nod, and MMOs, because both ripped off D&D.  But, if WotC were to maximize accessibility to new players coming from that end of the broader genre, they'd outrage enough of their fan base to create that toxic controversy that'd keep those potential new players away.
> 
> I'm sorry,  I just phrased that as a hypothetical, when we all know it already happened 10 years ago.




Weeeell, but I come from the video game end of things: I played World of Warcraft when it was new and hip, I played Bards Tale and Dragon Wars (never saw a dragon, there was no war?) when they were old and I had no idea how the game's worked because I was 7.

Coming from a video game background, 5E is more accessible than 4E, whose "video gaminess" was always overblown. It really is more of a miniatures war game in style. 

One thing 5E has going for it, is that it leans into the parts of TTRPGing that video games can't replicate, and easing up on the areas where computers will always be better.


----------



## darjr

There is also a strange boom or rebellion going on. People want the stuff of video games but the stuff of parties and hanging out away from the screen. It started with board games and continues with them, and now D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> 4E, whose "video gaminess" was always overblown. It really is more of a miniatures war game in style.



 Both mischaracterizations were overblown edition war rhetoric.  It was a TTFRPG, just one that erred too far on the side of accessibility (and, specifically, accessibility to potential customers with exposure to the huge MMO phenom) and alienated a sufficiently nerdrage-prone segment of their base to get overblown rhetoric like that repeated, even now. 

Really, WotC tried to thread that same needle each time, with Essentials, with 4e, probably even with 3.0 (which arguably erred the other way, appealing too much to hard-core system-mastery at the price if accessibility) they just finally got it right with 5e.

Not a risk they should take again anytime soon.




> One thing 5E has going for it, is that it leans into the parts of TTRPGing that video games can't replicate, and easing up on the areas where computers will always be better.



 Not meaningfully different from any other TTRPG, that way.


----------



## dave2008

Matrix Sorcica said:


> This _really_ has my interest. Maybe show your design and ideas and get input in another thread?



Well I did make an outline off the top of my head in another thread:  6 action economy
I could spin it off in its own thread I guess.

PS. I got the idea from a post in the PF forums, so I want to find that again before I start a new thread.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Both mischaracterizations were overblown edition war rhetoric.  It was a TTFRPG, just one that erred too far on the side of accessibility (and, specifically, accessibility to potential customers with exposure to the huge MMO phenom) and alienated a sufficiently nerdrage-prone segment of their base to get overblown rhetoric like that repeated, even now.
> 
> Really, WotC tried to thread that same needle each time, with Essentials, with 4e, probably even with 3.0 (which arguably erred the other way, appealing too much to hard-core system-mastery at the price if accessibility) they just finally got it right with 5e.
> 
> Not a risk they should take again anytime soon.
> 
> 
> Not meaningfully different from any other TTRPG, that way.




As someone who played World of Warcraft before seriously playing D&D, 4E's being an on-ramp for MMO never made sense. Doesn't now


----------



## Anselyn

Parmandur said:


> But the potential new customers, the youth, don't come from a vacuum. I didn't play D&D until college, but there were cultural elements going back through my childhood, through video games particularly. WotC is being extremely proactive about cultivating tomorrow's player base right now.




You reach an equilibrium state by having the number of new players equalling the number of quitting players. (c.f. Games Workshop business model basically for boys age ~13 to ~16). The final steady state might not be what it is now but could be substantial.


----------



## Parmandur

Anselyn said:


> You reach an equilibrium state by having the number of new players equalling the number of quitting players. (c.f. Games Workshop business model basically for boys age ~13 to ~16). The final steady state might not be what it is now but could be substantial.




It could be more than now, even.


----------



## Don Durito

Zardnaar said:


> They won't make a .5 edition again or phb2.



Yeah a .5 edition is a terrible idea.

You get all the negatives of publishing a new edition, plus all the backlash for anything that is _too _different, and the implications that you were lying about the extent of any changes.

Might as well just make a new edition and call it 6th edition, even if the changes aren't too radical.

I could see them possibly publishing a revised players handbook at some point - but that would depend on the conclusion that the main issues players have are in the class design - and it would require the rest of the system to remain unchanged.  (And if they did I would imagine the amount of bonus actions classes get would be radically reduced - but removing them entirely would probably be best for a new edition.)  But even doing that would attact some of the negatives of a new edition - so that I could only see that happening if they were confident that publishing such a book would delay a new edition.


----------



## Tony Vargas

6e will be the "whenever edition"

Yknow...

"We can expect to enjoy a new edition when?"
"Never!"


----------



## Arnwolf666

It doesn’t matter if you piss off players or lose players if they are no longer buying books because they feel they have enough. At that point it’s time to create a new edition.


----------



## darjr

Yea, but it’s also why the current style of release being adventure books, seasons in an episodic show kinda, that I think helps the longevity.


----------



## Parmandur

Arnwolf666 said:


> It doesn’t matter if you piss off players or lose players if they are no longer buying books because they feel they have enough. At that point it’s time to create a new edition.




Or get new players, which is better business if you can swing it.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

Average lifespan of an edition is 9.75 years.  If you discount 4e as a bad run (only 6 years, many issues from day 1, though it was popular with many), then the average lifespan is 10.333 years.
(I'm counting AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3.0, 4E, 5E)

Therefore, I'm putting my money on the 2024 50th anniversary for the next real New Edition.


----------



## FrogReaver

Anselyn said:


> You reach an equilibrium state by having the number of new players equalling the number of quitting players. (c.f. Games Workshop business model basically for boys age ~13 to ~16). The final steady state might not be what it is now but could be substantial.




That's a possibility.


TiwazTyrsfist said:


> Average lifespan of an edition is 9.75 years.  If you discount 4e as a bad run (only 6 years, many issues from day 1, though it was popular with many), then the average lifespan is 10.333 years.
> (I'm counting AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3.0, 4E, 5E)
> 
> Therefore, I'm putting my money on the 2024 50th anniversary for the next real New Edition.




You don’t think 5e is an above average edition?


----------



## Parmandur

FrogReaver said:


> You don’t think 5e is an above average edition?




Heh, beyond that question, I don't think a 45 year old industry has enough data to make valid inferences about that sort of thing.


----------



## darjr

Wait, how many years is 5e’s run now? Does it start with the PHB?


----------



## darjr

This.

 Edition is both irrelevant and the lingua fraca (sp? Yea I’m low brow) And is yet another reason I think 5e, now known as just D&D, will be around for a while.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> Wait, how many years is 5e’s run now? Does it start with the PHB?




With the Starter Set: played 5E for the first time in 4th of July, 2014.


----------



## Zardnaar

It's 5 years old. 

 Just remember 1983 adjusted for inflation D&D was bigger than the the entire RPG market of 2018 and went out of print 7 years later. 

People get bored, move on, bubble pops, recession, new CEO etc.


----------



## NineLizards

Tony Vargas said:


> Amusingly, there's already a 5e product called "Essentials."
> 
> No worries.  Just like 5e fighters _actually cast spells_ to no controversey whatsoever.
> 
> Heck, 5e, like 3.5 did, could probably get away with a PH2.




Yep, the (re)use of the word 'Essentials' did surprise me...

And yeah, just turned my 5e Dwarf fighter into a F3C1 High Dex Low Strength Trickster Cleric Eldritch Knight Ninja dagger thrower. That casts wizardly and clerical spells... Duh...


----------



## Tallifer

WotC has yet to publish, for example, a Players' Handbook with psionic rules and classes, so there is a lot of room left for 5E to grow.


----------



## Hussar

Zardnaar said:


> It's 5 years old.
> 
> Just remember 1983 adjusted for inflation D&D was bigger than the the entire RPG market of 2018 and went out of print 7 years later.
> 
> People get bored, move on, bubble pops, recession, new CEO etc.



I'm not sure we can definitively state that to be honest.  The voodoo accounting of TSR in the early 80's makes any statement of market size guesswork at best.  And, frankly, the boom/bust cycle of a fad is probably the worst business model we could work with.

However, that all being said, why are we assuming that 5e has plateaued this year?  It's still in the top 100 of all Amazon books, every release is doing fantastically well and there is zero evidence that the market isn't growing.

My prediction is that we won't even begin to see development on 6e until the PHB hits 1000 on Amazon.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure we can definitively state that to be honest.  The voodoo accounting of TSR in the early 80's makes any statement of market size guesswork at best.  And, frankly, the boom/bust cycle of a fad is probably the worst business model we could work with.
> 
> However, that all being said, why are we assuming that 5e has plateaued this year?  It's still in the top 100 of all Amazon books, every release is doing fantastically well and there is zero evidence that the market isn't growing.
> 
> My prediction is that we won't even begin to see development on 6e until the PHB hits 1000 on Amazon.




I don't think its plateaued.

WoTC has used the 27 million figure themselves in the Golden Age they had two D&D's going gangbusters, red box and 1E.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

In 2024? Then it will not 6th Ed. but "50 Anniversary Ed" and that is different. In the coming soon years a lot of things can happen, for example a D&D blockbuster movie or a smash-hit cartoon serie in the streaming platforms. 

Maybe they create a Real-Time-Strategy videogame (set in Birthright?) what becomes a popular e-sport. 

Or Onyx Path/White Wolf could publish a open-licence d20 system with a different list of abilities scores to be an universal omni-genre system and becomes in the second most used. 

Or Hasbro buys a videogame studio....


----------



## Zardnaar

Hasbro won't buy a game studio that matters. Game development is really expensive now.


----------



## Hussar

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think its plateaued.
> 
> WoTC has used the 27 million figure themselves in the Golden Age they had two D&D's going gangbusters, red box and 1E.




So, if it hasn't plateaued yet, then it's still growing and we're not going to see any movement towards developing a 6e.  Why would they?  New editions are fantastically expensive and there is no guarantee that a new edition will be successful.  

And, even at plateau levels, they still won't be looking too hard into development because, well, even if you're not making more money year on year, so long as you're still making a decent profit, there's no real incentive to spend millions in development.  

So, figure the next three or four years as continued growth.  Granted, I have no reason to pick that number, so, that's just a complete guess.  We plateau for four years after that and then profits start sliding.  Two or three years of development after that, and we're looking at somewhere around 2030 before 6e hits the shelves.  

Unless there is a real shakeup of the market, it seems that this is a plausible scenario.


----------



## dave2008

Zardnaar said:


> Hasbro won't buy a game studio that matters. Game development is really expensive now.



Not saying they will, but Hasbro has a net worth over 4x Bethesda's.  That seems like something you could buy/merge with.


----------



## 3catcircus

Don Durito said:


> I believe Mearls has said that they'll do a 6th edition when the flaws in 5E have become annoying and obvious enough to the player base to make one necessary (or something to that effect).




So, now...

5e suffers from the same basic flaws as 4e and 3e in how it treats the core damage and healing mechanics and in how it treats advancement of hit points, attack bonus, hit points, etc.

Stop the arms races involving armor class, attack bonus and hit points and 5e can remain evergreen.  I would release a hardback 5e UA with alternative core mechanics such as using a dice pool for skills, attacks, saves, etc. and additional bolt-on optional mechanics to ratchet up the deadliness of combat.  PF 2e has sort of captured some of this in the way they handle proficiency bonuses.

It doesn't help their cause that the only things they've released with any consistency are giant, expensive hardback adventures.  What they ought to be doing is developing 32-page adventures that are generic, setting-wise, but with a sidebar identifying where to locate in Greyhawk, FR, and Mystara.  Do one every 4-6 months.


----------



## FrogReaver

Zardnaar said:


> It's 5 years old.
> 
> Just remember 1983 adjusted for inflation D&D was bigger than the the entire RPG market of 2018 and went out of print 7 years later.
> 
> People get bored, move on, bubble pops, recession, new CEO etc.




Not in playetbase. Maybe sells of all books


----------



## MoonSong

3catcircus said:


> 5e suffers from the same basic flaws as 4e and 3e in how it treats the core damage and healing mechanics and in how it treats advancement of hit points, attack bonus, hit points, etc.



I kind of agree. The scaling of everything, specially hit points, is too much.


3catcircus said:


> I would release a hardback 5e UA with alternative core mechanics such as using a dice pool for skills, attacks, saves, etc.



On the other hand, nop. Dice pool games aren't up my alley. IMO thee solution to too much math isn't even more math.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

If Hasbro has bought Entertainment One then (buying) a videogame studio, maybe a little one, is possible. The don't need to produce AAA videogame, but to start with something for mobiles. I bet the videogame adaptations are the best way to playtesting lots of new ideas.

They also need a basic board game for +7y players, something like the old "Hero Quest" but with other name, for example "Endless Quest".


----------



## 3catcircus

MoonSong said:


> I kind of agree. The scaling of everything, specially hit points, is too much.
> 
> On the other hand, nop. Dice pool games aren't up my alley. IMO thee solution to too much math isn't even more math.




The dice pool mechanic I'd advocate is roll a number of d20s based upon your skill ranks (and combat would be skill-based too).  Roll under compared to your target number (skill value with conditional modifiers).  The amount you succeed is a margin of success (and vice versa for failure).  Additional successes add to your margin of success.

Armor would be solely damage reduction rather than the insipid "makes you harder to hit" in D&D.

Hit points would be used as injury thresholds, so you don't remain 100% effective down to 0 hp (with the added benefit of the player naturally knowing when it is time to run away rather than stubbornly staying until you have a TPK).

I like this type of mechanic because everything can be precalculated on your character sheet.


----------



## Tony Vargas

FrogReaver said:


> You don’t think 5e is an above average edition?



 In what sense?
As an intentional "compromise edition," it's aggressively average by design.
In terms of annual sales, it's second only to the fad years.


----------



## Tony Vargas

3catcircus said:


> The dice pool mechanic ...
> Armor would be solely damage reduction
> Hit points would be used as injury thresholds,



Those changes are even more radical than every change form 0e to 4e, happening all at once.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

We have to wait until the return of Ravenloft (not only a module but all the demiplane of dread), Dark Sun and Dragonlance. And maybe this will be after a movie adaptation learning with the experiences of the first D&D movie.

In the hands by the right writers a Ravenloft teleserie could be a smash-hit as Game of Thrones but a story so good needs years. Other option could be a new cartoon based in the children gamebooks "the fantasy forest". Now there is a public for interactive game book and they only need a streamer platform.  It wouldn't too different parents giving a tablet to children to watch cartoons.

If they want to try new ideas, then better to start a new line from zero, or like a videogame, or to publish a new edition of Unearthed Arcana (why not a module about an optional list of abilities scores?).


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> What they ought to be doing is developing 32-page adventures that are generic, setting-wise, but with a sidebar identifying where to locate in Greyhawk, FR, and Mystara. Do one every 4-6 months.




They do this already, just as chapters in larger books. Which are selling like hotcakes.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> They do this already, just as chapters in larger books. Which are selling like hotcakes.



Not as independent stand alone modules like in 1e or BECMI...


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> Not as independent stand alone modules like in 1e or BECMI...




Right, because buying 7-8 modules with a thin connecting material for $30-50 is a better deal than paying in excess of $100 for the same material, and they want to make it easy and affordable for people to get a lot of material.


----------



## darjr

And they are getting better at it


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> And they are getting better at it




True, iteration and testing has worked well.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

They can't publish a new edition if they are still selling "remakes" and almost nothing new. 

Hasbro doesn't want to sell more books, not exactly, but they want a more powerful brand. Then the goal is the highest number of players. They want Dragonlance to become as famous like Conan, Lord of the Rings or Warcraft. 

Maybe Hasbro buys a cinema studio like Dreamworks or Liongate. They know the future is in the media and videogame e-sports.


----------



## 3catcircus

Tony Vargas said:


> Those changes are even more radical than every change form 0e to 4e, happening all at once.




Nope - every single one of the things you listed as "radical" has been introduced as optional rules at least as far back as 3e (such as Armor as DR) and Vitality/Wounds) if not in earlier editions.

AD&D 1e and 2e had optional rules using negative hit points, with Gygax stating in the 1e DMG that going below -6 hp resulted in some type of permanent injury.

5e's advantage/disadvantage is a form of dice pool.

AD&D 1e/2e had optional rules for armor vs weapon type, a form of armor as damage reduction.

An optional system for wounds, injury, and pain thresholds was introduced as far back as the Feb '87 issue of Dragon (issue 118).  The author wrote "Basically, a wound of sufficient severity should cause pain (as well as actual mechanical damage to the working parts of the body) that affects a character's performance."  It used the CON score to identify a percentage of total hit points that acted as a pain threshold, modified by race and class, with options for hit location, being knocked unconscious, avoiding wounds, and healing of specific wounds, as well as rules for mounts.


----------



## schneeland

3catcircus said:


> The dice pool mechanic I'd advocate is roll a number of d20s based upon your skill ranks (and combat would be skill-based too).  Roll under compared to your target number (skill value with conditional modifiers).  The amount you succeed is a margin of success (and vice versa for failure).  Additional successes add to your margin of success.
> 
> Armor would be solely damage reduction rather than the insipid "makes you harder to hit" in D&D.
> 
> Hit points would be used as injury thresholds, so you don't remain 100% effective down to 0 hp (with the added benefit of the player naturally knowing when it is time to run away rather than stubbornly staying until you have a TPK).
> 
> I like this type of mechanic because everything can be precalculated on your character sheet.




The thing is: it's not that I don't agree with many of your points or at least find them interesting enough to see them pursued, but I feel at some point you start to have a new game (in particular: I cannot see D&D ever drop the d20).


----------



## MoonSong

3catcircus said:


> The dice pool mechanic I'd advocate is roll a number of d20s based upon your skill ranks (and combat would be skill-based too).  Roll under compared to your target number (skill value with conditional modifiers).  The amount you succeed is a margin of success (and vice versa for failure).  Additional successes add to your margin of success.
> 
> Armor would be solely damage reduction rather than the insipid "makes you harder to hit" in D&D.
> 
> Hit points would be used as injury thresholds, so you don't remain 100% effective down to 0 hp (with the added benefit of the player naturally knowing when it is time to run away rather than stubbornly staying until you have a TPK).
> 
> I like this type of mechanic because everything can be precalculated on your character sheet.




Maybe you should check DAS or Talislantla. Just saying.


----------



## Tony Vargas

MoonSong said:


> Maybe you should check DAS or Talislantla. Just saying.



Or GURPS. Seems exactly his thing, honestly.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> Right, because buying 7-8 modules with a thin connecting material for $30-50 is a better deal than paying in excess of $100 for the same material, and they want to make it easy and affordable for people to get a lot of material.



Yeah,  I don't want thin connecting material unless it is planned as a specific adventure path.  I want plot hooks that can be exploited by the DM to link any/all modules into a campaign.  Those plot hooks can be as simple as a sidebar identifying where to locate a particular adventure in a particular official campaign setting.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> Yeah,  I don't want thin connecting material unless it is planned as a specific adventure path.  I want plot hooks that can be exploited by the DM to link any/all modules into a campaign.  Those plot hooks can be as simple as a sidebar identifying where to locate a particular adventure in a particular official campaign setting.




It's super easy to remove the hooks in any of the published 5E adventure books. Easier to remove than to add, certainly.

You may want smaller products that would have the same material as the hardcovers, but the cost and presentation are superior in the collected format and it sells very well, so "ought" doesn't seem to be an appropriate moniker for altering course.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

How to explain it with an example? Do you know the car tuning? Hasbro doesn't want to sell lots of pieces of car tuning but the goal is a car in all homes, and after selling pieces for car tuning. Hasbro want to sell the doll, and after when are the girls with one, then to sell clothes for this doll (and the car, and the house, and the pets..)

You can create your house rules, but these to become official is different. If those changes aren't in the retroclon games it will be because some reason. You can create new rules for other board game as Risk or Monopoly, but to sell more they game needs simple rules to be easy to be learnt by the new players. 

Hasbro doesn't want a D&D like a Dark Souls for hardcore gamers but a Mario Bros for the new players who are starting. Hasbro doesn't want to sell a hard challenge for fans of model building but a "kindergarten block kit".  Hasbro doesn't want to sell a Shakespeare's or Tolstoi novel but a Julio Verne or Emilio Salgari's book adapted to teen public. 

3.5 was lot of crunch (feat, spells, magic item..) and now 5th Ed is recycling the fluff (lore or background). A new edition only can be after when nothing new can be added. With DM Guild you have enough crunch to fill up. WotC doesn't need risks yet, but to publish something 3rd party publishers can't sell so good. 

The next edition will not be D&D but a different name, for example Universal d20 system, and with a feedback not only from players, but with idead from the own 3rd Party publishers to can be added to their own settings (for example Courage as ability score for a gothic horror setting).


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> It's super easy to remove the hooks in any of the published 5E adventure books. Easier to remove than to add, certainly.
> 
> You may want smaller products that would have the same material as the hardcovers, but the cost and presentation are superior in the collected format and it sells very well, so "ought" doesn't seem to be an appropriate moniker for altering course.




Superior for whom?  I've got BECMI and 1ed modules sitting on my shelf that, other than a little oxidation on the staples, is just fine.  I've also got hard-bound 3e and 4e books that started falling apart within months of purchase.

I *don't want the same material as in the hardcovers.  I want to drop in adventures that can be used in any campaign, either as a side quest or as part of the main plot.  Dungeon Crawl Classics did a great job of this in 3e.

The fact that they've adapted 1e modules to 5e, like B2, and posted them on dmsguild (not the giant hardcover conversion of B2) tells you they know people want this type of product.


----------



## Don Durito

Aren't 3rd party publishers doing oodles of that?


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> Superior for whom?  I've got BECMI and 1ed modules sitting on my shelf that, other than a little oxidation on the staples, is just fine.  I've also got hard-bound 3e and 4e books that started falling apart within months of purchase.
> 
> *I *don't want the same material as in the hardcovers.  I want to drop in adventures that can be used in any campaign, either as a side quest or as part of the main plot. * Dungeon Crawl Classics did a great job of this in 3e.
> 
> The fact that they've adapted 1e modules to 5e, like B2 tells you they know people want this type of product.




Well, superior for people who don't have all of that older material nor the resources to drop $20 a pop on a bunch of 32 page booklets, like the teens who are the main audience.

I bolded two sentences, that directly contradict each other. The chapters in the big adventure books are, in fact, drop in adventures that can be used in any campaign, either as a side quest or as part of the main plot. 

The fact that they've printed collections of 1E modules in the same format that are not much different shows this fairly well.


----------



## Parmandur

Don Durito said:


> Aren't 3rd party publishers doing oodles of that?




That, too. Not doing Hoard of the Dragon Queen sales, though.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Not doing Board of the Dragon Queen sales, though.



 Man, I would hate to be showing power point slides at that meeting!


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Man, I would hate to be showing power point slides at that meeting!




Take Baldurs Gate and Acquisitions Incorporated, smash them together.


----------



## darjr

DMSGUILD is great for small adventures to drop in places. There is isles of great content. I dint miss em from WotC. Why do they need to be from WotC?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

3catcircus said:


> The fact that they've adapted 1e modules to 5e, like B2, and posted them on dmsguild (not the giant hardcover conversion of B2) tells you they know people want this type of product.



They haven't.


----------



## 3catcircus

Matrix Sorcica said:


> They haven't.




Really?  Go look on dmsguild.com.  There are about a dozen classic modules that have been converted.  A bunch were converted to 3e and posted on this very website back in the day.  People want the older modules because the content resonates, even though the mechanics have changed actual the editions.


----------



## darjr

WotC didn’t, not for 5e in the guild. AFAIK it was done by third parties.


----------



## Parmandur

Matrix Sorcica said:


> They haven't.




Well, they published Tales from the Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and let Goodman Games do some big collected books. But that rather argues for the big compilation model.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> Really?  Go look on dmsguild.com.  There are about a dozen classic modules that have been converted.  A bunch were converted to 3e and posted on this very website back in the day.  People want the older modules because the content resonates, even though the mechanics have changed actual the editions.




Those are conversion documents, that is to say, guidelines for what to do with the actual module, not modules translated into 5E.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> Those are conversion documents, that is to say, guidelines for what to do with the actual module, not modules translated into 5E.



No, they're actual conversions of the stats, if I recall.  Combine that with the fact that the originals are also available = you have the module translated to 5e.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> No, they're actual conversions of the stats, if I recall.  Combine that with the fact that the originals are also available = you have the module translated to 5e.




Yes, that's what I said, a guide with conversion information, not a converted module, like that in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> Yes, that's what I said, a guide with conversion information, not a converted module, like that in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.



I would call that a new treatment or take, not a conversion.


----------



## darjr

But WotC didn’t do it. They didn’t identify that need. A third party did. WotC filled that need by opening up the IP for third parties on the DMsGuild. So your problems solved.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> I would call that a new treatment or take, not a conversion.




Ghosts of Saltmarsh has the text of the original modules, modified to have 5E relevant information in the text. That's a conversion?


----------



## Hussar

3catcircus said:


> /snip
> It doesn't help their cause that the only things they've released with any consistency are giant, expensive hardback adventures.  What they ought to be doing is developing 32-page adventures that are generic, setting-wise, but with a sidebar identifying where to locate in Greyhawk, FR, and Mystara.  Do one every 4-6 months.




This, frankly, baffles me.

Look at those "giant, expensive hardback adventures".  The WORST selling of them is still selling better than most other RPG products.  Out of the Abyss is a 4 year old module.  It's STILL sitting at about 8000 on Amazon in all books.  That's the place those 32 page modules hold after a month.  If they're lucky.  To put it in perspective, Pathfinder 2 core rule book is sitting at about 2500 in all books.  It hasn't been out three MONTHS yet, let alone 4 years. 

Why in their right mind would WotC do what you propose when what they are doing is, by leaps and bounds, far more successful than anything done before?

Or, to put it another way, why do they need to "help their cause"?  Their cause seems to be pretty darn helped.


----------



## darjr

But! WotC ALSO provided for those that want small adventures. DMsGuild has lots of them, many really good ones. Many written by the same folks that write for WotC.
Really I’m kinda drowning in a land of plenty.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> Ghosts of Saltmarsh has the text of the original modules, modified to have 5E relevant information in the text. That's a conversion?



But it isn't a straight conversion - they've added several additional adventures.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> This, frankly, baffles me.
> 
> Look at those "giant, expensive hardback adventures".  The WORST selling of them is still selling better than most other RPG products.  Out of the Abyss is a 4 year old module.  It's STILL sitting at about 8000 on Amazon in all books.  That's the place those 32 page modules hold after a month.  If they're lucky.  To put it in perspective, Pathfinder 2 core rule book is sitting at about 2500 in all books.  It hasn't been out three MONTHS yet, let alone 4 years.
> 
> Why in their right mind would WotC do what you propose when what they are doing is, by leaps and bounds, far more successful than anything done before?
> 
> Or, to put it another way, why do they need to "help their cause"?  Their cause seems to be pretty darn helped.




Smaller adventures are easier to run. LMoP is so good because of its length. 

 3pp exist  but they don't have the same "prestige" as WotC ones.

 Often the longer adventures don't get completed either and they can be hard for a DM to digest.


----------



## 3catcircus

Hussar said:


> This, frankly, baffles me.
> 
> Look at those "giant, expensive hardback adventures".  The WORST selling of them is still selling better than most other RPG products.  Out of the Abyss is a 4 year old module.  It's STILL sitting at about 8000 on Amazon in all books.  That's the place those 32 page modules hold after a month.  If they're lucky.  To put it in perspective, Pathfinder 2 core rule book is sitting at about 2500 in all books.  It hasn't been out three MONTHS yet, let alone 4 years.
> 
> Why in their right mind would WotC do what you propose when what they are doing is, by leaps and bounds, far more successful than anything done before?
> 
> Or, to put it another way, why do they need to "help their cause"?  Their cause seems to be pretty darn helped.




How many people new to playing D&D starting with 5e are aware of ENWorld, dmsguild, or drivethrurpg?  Or Pathfinder, Burning Wheel, or any other RPG? D&D has brand recognition unmatched by any other TTRPG publisher.

Those $50 hardback adventures are all many D&D buyers know exist.  When you aren't aware of other resources, you'll buy what you know is available.  

The other piece to this that no one talks about: how many DMs end up spending $50 for that hardback only to abandon it halfway through because the players have lost interest?  A 32 page generic module is easy to go drop in, and it's easy to salvage or abandon.  

Have all this freelancers do them for you and even if you as WotC kept 75% of the profit, that name brand recognition will drive buyers to dmsguild or drivethrurpg head and shoulders above their current traffic.  

I find it disheartening that the quality of content in adventures is, on average, better amongst 3pp than it is for the ones WotC publish themselves.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> But it isn't a straight conversion - they've added several additional adventures.




Not inside the relevant chapters: Chapter 2 is just the original Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh, Chapter 3 is just the original Danger in Dunwater, Chapter 6 is a conversion of The Final Enemy, and the same for the chapters on the Dungeon magazine modules. Those chapters are all straight conversions, with Chapter 1 fleshing out the sandbox region it's all set in, and there is some cool stuff in the Appendix. All for $28.49 on Amazon, which costs less than buying just three of the included modules and the DMsGuild conversion keys.


----------



## Parmandur

Zardnaar said:


> Smaller adventures are easier to run. LMoP is so good because of its length.
> 
> 3pp exist  but they don't have the same "prestige" as WotC ones.
> 
> Often the longer adventures don't get completed either and they can be hard for a DM to digest.




Not hard if taken one chapter at a time: basically no difference from shorter adventures when viewed that way.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> The other piece to this that no one talks about: how many DMs end up spending $50 for that hardback only to abandon it halfway through because the players have lost interest? A 32 page generic module is easy to go drop in, and it's easy to salvage or abandon.




I paid $32 to see Toy Story 4 with my brother-in-law. That was two hours of entertainment.

If I only get 50 hours of entertainment out of $50, that's a big win. Not sure how it would be better to pay 2-3 times as much for the same material in small booklets.



3catcircus said:


> I find it disheartening that the quality of content in adventures is, on average, better amongst 3pp than it is for the ones WotC publish themselves.




Questionable assertion is questionable. Though we haven't been discussing quality, but rather publishing format. It's not like Chris Perkins would write differently if his chapters were turned into small book.


----------



## 3catcircus

Parmandur said:


> Not inside the relevant chapters: Chapter 2 is just the original Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh, Chapter 3 is just the original Danger in Dunwater, Chapter 6 is a conversion of The Final Enemy, and the same for the chapters on the Dungeon magazine modules. Those chapters are all straight conversions, with Chapter 1 fleshing out the sandbox region it's all set in, and there is some cool stuff in the Appendix. All for $28.49 on Amazon, which costs less than buying just three of the included modules and the DMsGuild conversion keys.



You are completely missing (or being willfully ignorant of) my point: a DM can buy _one_ module for a few sheckels and use it in their campaign as they see fit, and they can take the sequel as the next adventure when it comes out, or apply it to some other plot hook 6 months later, or mine it for ideas.

I'd rather spend $4.95 on dmsguild for a short adventure, picking and choosing, rather than get locked in to a $50 encyclopedia that might be complete suckage.


----------



## darjr

DnDBeyond and DMsGuild are in flyers in both boxed sets asfaik


----------



## Zardnaar

3catcircus said:


> How many people new to playing D&D starting with 5e are aware of ENWorld, dmsguild, or drivethrurpg?  Or Pathfinder, Burning Wheel, or any other RPG? D&D has brand recognition unmatched by any other TTRPG publisher.
> 
> Those $50 hardback adventures are all many D&D buyers know exist.  When you aren't aware of other resources, you'll buy what you know is available.
> 
> The other piece to this that no one talks about: how many DMs end up spending $50 for that hardback only to abandon it halfway through because the players have lost interest?  A 32 page generic module is easy to go drop in, and it's easy to salvage or abandon.
> 
> Have all this freelancers do them for you and even if you as WotC kept 75% of the profit, that name brand recognition will drive buyers to dmsguild or drivethrurpg head and shoulders above their current traffic.
> 
> I find it disheartening that the quality of content in adventures is, on average, better amongst 3pp than it is for the ones WotC publish themselves.




This. Books might be selling, idk how many actually get used let alone completed.

 I use 3pp none of the other 10 groups do.


----------



## darjr

A lot of the groups around here dive into the books and run them. It really does become a common ground of sorts, sometimes it’s like folks were in it together. Sometimes it’s like a weird alternate universe. It’s cool when folks discuss the different ways they handled the same areas and NPCs and monsters.


----------



## Parmandur

3catcircus said:


> You are completely missing (or being willfully ignorant of) my point: a DM can buy _one_ module for a few sheckels and use it in their campaign as they see fit, and they can take the sequel as the next adventure when it comes out, or apply it to some other plot hook 6 months later, or mine it for ideas.




Which can also be done with the larger books individual chapters very easily. As it is, the same material (because they wouldn't have different adventure styles if they were putting out smaller books) costs less and is delivered in a compact form. This is a mild inconvenience for some who are only interested in pieces and parts (that is, people interested in giving WotC less money). However, anyone who would want to buy it all (i.e., the customers) would be out a lot of money if they had to buy the components separately. In the business of maximizing overall satisfaction and ROI, bigger adventure books are a win-win for WotC.



3catcircus said:


> I'd rather spend $4.95 on dmsguild for a short adventure, picking and choosing, rather than get locked in to a $50 encyclopedia that might be complete suckage.




By all means, do so, those options are available. But your individual preferences do not necessarily translate to an "ought" for WotC business plan.


----------



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> A lot of the groups around here dive into the books and run them. It really does become a common ground of sorts, sometimes it’s like folks were in it together. Sometimes it’s like a weird alternate universe. It’s cool when folks discuss the different ways they handled the same areas and NPCs and monsters.




I've seen and heard a lot of that with Curse of Strahd particularly. I know that phenomenon, of shared experience, was something that Mearls would talk about as one of their design goals for the big adventure books. Mission Accomplished.


----------



## darjr

Huh? Yea i did notice it more with Curse. The creepy factor played well I guess. It was fun.


----------



## Nebulous

Parmandur said:


> I've seen and heard a lot of that with Curse of Strahd particularly. I know that phenomenon, of shared experience, was something that Mearls would talk about as one of their design goals for the big adventure books. Mission Accomplished.




Yeah, it's a great feature of the game, the shared experiences.  Phandlever is a shorter one, but it also has such a great premise and execution that it's fun to see how other campaigns do it.  I sat in on a game today at local hobby shop and they were trudging through Thundertree with brand new players.


----------



## Hussar

Zardnaar said:


> Smaller adventures are easier to run. LMoP is so good because of its length.
> 
> 3pp exist  but they don't have the same "prestige" as WotC ones.
> 
> Often the longer adventures don't get completed either and they can be hard for a DM to digest.




But, again, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, modules are not only selling on release, but, continuing to be sold.  In any other edition, a 4 year old module was done.  It sure as heck wasn't even a blip on the radar of sales.  Now, 4 year old modules are selling better than entire RPG lines.  Again, why would WotC change what they are doing?  Selling small modules was tried.  Selling parcels of modules through subscription was tried.  None of them worked.  Modules were almost always poor sellers.  This is the first time that modules are driving sales of D&D.



3catcircus said:


> /snip
> 
> I find it disheartening that the quality of content in adventures is, on average, better amongst 3pp than it is for the ones WotC publish themselves.




This is the same song and dance we had back in 3e where it was always the 3rd party publishers that were doing better games, better content, more interesting stuff, so on and so forth.  

Yet, funnily enough, you could take the entire DM's Guild sales and probably not equal the total sales of one WotC module.  

Small modules don't sell.  I'm sorry to burst people's bubbles, but, they just don't.  There's a reason that Paizo doesn't do them, and WotC doesn't either.  Too much money investment for far too little return.  It's kinda funny in a way.  DM's Guild is doing exactly what WotC wanted the 3pp to do back in 3e- focus on modules and adventures and not try to reinvent the game wheel.  Win win.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> But, again, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, modules are not only selling on release, but, continuing to be sold.  In any other edition, a 4 year old module was done.  It sure as heck wasn't even a blip on the radar of sales.  Now, 4 year old modules are selling better than entire RPG lines.  Again, why would WotC change what they are doing?  Selling small modules was tried.  Selling parcels of modules through subscription was tried.  None of them worked.  Modules were almost always poor sellers.  This is the first time that modules are driving sales of D&D.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same song and dance we had back in 3e where it was always the 3rd party publishers that were doing better games, better content, more interesting stuff, so on and so forth.
> 
> Yet, funnily enough, you could take the entire DM's Guild sales and probably not equal the total sales of one WotC module.
> 
> Small modules don't sell.  I'm sorry to burst people's bubbles, but, they just don't.  There's a reason that Paizo doesn't do them, and WotC doesn't either.  Too much money investment for far too little return.  It's kinda funny in a way.  DM's Guild is doing exactly what WotC wanted the 3pp to do back in 3e- focus on modules and adventures and not try to reinvent the game wheel.  Win win.




They won't make a lot of money but if they made some a'la LMoP and sold them cheap.

I don't expect them to make a huge amount but more than 1 would be nice.

Also you might want to look into sales if some if the OSR modules several of which sold six figures.

WotC hasn't had an edition as popular as 5E a follow up module to LMoP could be popular or deluxe starter set containing hypothetical module.

There's apparently a shortage of DMs, shorter modules will help with that. They're easier to run/digest.

 Adventures don't sell dates from 2E when they didn't sell because 2E had crap adventures and spilt the playerbase with settings. 

 To have a great hardcover adventure in effect you need to write 5 or 6 smaller ones and it's an art form not a science.


----------



## Hussar

Again, I always take TSR era sales figures with a HUGE grain of salt.  But, even accounting for that, EVERY 5e module to date has been selling 6 figures.  And, doesn't the new starter set not come with a module?  Why, yes, yes it does.  

Adventures don't sell well because straight up adventures never sell well.  Again, there's a reason that Pathfinder doesn't print just modules, but, rather, mini campaign settings with an attached module.  

Look, I get wanting shorter modules. Granted you HAVE about a thousand or so to choose from right now, many of which are produced by WotC, but, apparently that's not good enough.

So, let's take a look at the math shall we?  A 32 page module needs an artist, cartographer, and someone to write the adventure.  As well as editing, play testing, layout, etc.  IOW, a 32 page module takes virtually the same amount of investment as a 300 page module.  It's not like the writers are the big cost here.  It's that heavy paper cover with the map on the inside and all that full color art.  Because gone are the days when WotC is going to do line art.  Well, unless it's for maps.  

Then we have to market that module, advertise it, generate that buzz and whatnot.  How much money should we be spending on a product that, at best, we're going to make about 3 dollars a copy selling?  After all, the most we can charge for something like this is what, 20 bucks?  Maybe?  Between distribution, and whatnot, that means about 3 dollars goes to WotC/unit.  They'd need to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of each title just to break even.  

So, again, what's in it for WotC? Why would they bother?  Can the hobby really grow much faster than it already is?  We've seen the market nearly TRIPLE since 5e released.  How much faster do you think it can grow?


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Modules are to be used only once, but sourcebooks with "crunch" are for long time. Today in internet age we don't need to spend money to get "fluff", lore or background, because there are lots of wikis about videogames, movies, teleseries or novels.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hussar said:


> Again, I always take TSR era sales figures with a HUGE grain of salt.  But, even accounting for that, EVERY 5e module to date has been selling 6 figures.  And, doesn't the new starter set not come with a module?  Why, yes, yes it does.
> 
> Adventures don't sell well because straight up adventures never sell well.  Again, there's a reason that Pathfinder doesn't print just modules, but, rather, mini campaign settings with an attached module.
> 
> Look, I get wanting shorter modules. Granted you HAVE about a thousand or so to choose from right now, many of which are produced by WotC, but, apparently that's not good enough.
> 
> So, let's take a look at the math shall we?  A 32 page module needs an artist, cartographer, and someone to write the adventure.  As well as editing, play testing, layout, etc.  IOW, a 32 page module takes virtually the same amount of investment as a 300 page module.  It's not like the writers are the big cost here.  It's that heavy paper cover with the map on the inside and all that full color art.  Because gone are the days when WotC is going to do line art.  Well, unless it's for maps.
> 
> Then we have to market that module, advertise it, generate that buzz and whatnot.  How much money should we be spending on a product that, at best, we're going to make about 3 dollars a copy selling?  After all, the most we can charge for something like this is what, 20 bucks?  Maybe?  Between distribution, and whatnot, that means about 3 dollars goes to WotC/unit.  They'd need to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of each title just to break even.
> 
> So, again, what's in it for WotC? Why would they bother?  Can the hobby really grow much faster than it already is?  We've seen the market nearly TRIPLE since 5e released.  How much faster do you think it can grow?




 If they lose money fair enough it's a bad idea. 

 Most people don't know about the DMguikd it seems or use it. 

 Or own printers. 

 Apparently there's a DM shortage, LMoP is good there and no 3pp item is going to have the exposure of WoTC. 

I don't expect a massive number of modules a few extra would be nice.


----------



## teitan

Zardnaar said:


> WotC hasn't had an edition as popular as 5E a follow up module to LMoP could be popular or deluxe starter set containing hypothetical module.




They did... Dungeons & Dragons Essentials is a complete set of rules and an adventure ala LMoP with the option to expand it for FREE using DNDBeyond and the complimentary codes in the boxed set as well as a coupon for the PHB for 20 bucks. It includes some nice dice, a decent DM screen, several cards for hand outs and poster maps.


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> They did... Dungeons & Dragons Essentials is a complete set of rules and an adventure ala LMoP with the option to expand it for FREE using DNDBeyond and the complimentary codes in the boxed set as well as a coupon for the PHB for 20 bucks. It includes some nice dice, a decent DM screen, several cards for hand outs and poster maps.




Haven't seen it here and maybe print a few more copies for individual sale. 

 There's a stranger things box on the shelf I'll have another look tomorrow night. 

 Rooms becoming an issue I don't want more boxes just the adventure. 

 Yes I use DMG and have printer, but wouldn't mind a bit more first party variety. 

 I'm not gonna buy a boxed set just for an adventure.


----------



## teitan

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Modules are to be used only once, but sourcebooks with "crunch" are for long time. Today in internet age we don't need to spend money to get "fluff", lore or background, because there are lots of wikis about videogames, movies, teleseries or novels.




I have found the 5e modules to be valuable beyond one adventure or even needing to be used as an adventure. They have great gazetteers and the maps are wonderful resources for use in other adventures should you choose not to run the adventure, plus the lore and new monsters, equipment more than make up for not using it as an adventure.


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> I have found the 5e modules to be valuable beyond one adventure or even needing to be used as an adventure. They have great gazetteers and the maps are wonderful resources for use in other adventures should you choose not to run the adventure, plus the lore and new monsters, equipment more than make up for not using it as an adventure.




I more or less but them just to collect. 

 I mine them for stuff, occasionally use a chapter to run as a stand alone inventing a plot.


----------



## teitan

Zardnaar said:


> Haven't seen it here and maybe print a few more copies for individual sale.
> 
> There's a stranger things box on the shelf I'll have another look tomorrow night.
> 
> Rooms becoming an issue I don't want more boxes just the adventure.
> 
> Yes I use DMG and have printer, but wouldn't mind a bit more first party variety.
> 
> I'm not gonna buy a boxed set just for an adventure.




You're the one who said a deluxe starter set, I told you about Essentials. It's all over the place. It was Target exclusive for the first month and is now available everywhere I look from Books A Million, Barnes & Noble, the comic book shop etc. It's about as deluxe as it gets. You can also take the components out and toss the box. The cards have a little box to keep them in.


----------



## Green Onceler

Hussar said:


> There's a reason that Paizo doesn't do them, and WotC doesn't either.




Paizo does produce stand alone 64 page modules for Pathfinder. Not Starfinder, however.


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> You're the one who said a deluxe starter set, I told you about Essentials. It's all over the place. It was Target exclusive for the first month and is now available everywhere I look from Books A Million, Barnes & Noble, the comic book shop etc. It's about as deluxe as it gets. You can also take the components out and toss the box. The cards have a little box to keep them in.




Do you have a link? Things are on delayed release here takes a month or three to get here. And the distributor sucks.

It's out in 4 days, not available yet.


----------



## Doc_Klueless

Zardnaar said:


> Do you have a link? Things are on delayed release here takes a month or three to get here. And the distributor sucks.
> 
> It's out in 4 days, not available yet.



Dungeons and Dragons Essentials Kit at Amazon. Don't know if that's helpful. also at:

Barnes and Nobles
Books-a-million
Target


----------



## Zardnaar

Doc_Klueless said:


> Dungeons and Dragons Essentials Kit at Amazon.




Looks great, what level range is the adventure? 


 Postage makes it better to wait assuming it's similar in price to the starter set.


----------



## Doc_Klueless

Zardnaar said:


> Looks great, what level range is the adventure?



About level 2 to level 5 with notes in each one for using it for different levels.


----------



## Zardnaar

Doc_Klueless said:


> About level 2 to level 5 with notes in each one for using it for different levels.




Cheers any reviews anywhere. 

 Unless it's stupidly expensive I'll pick it up at some point here.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica

3catcircus said:


> No, they're actual conversions of the stats, if I recall.  Combine that with the fact that the originals are also available = you have the module translated to 5e.



They are not done by WotC.



3catcircus said:


> I'd rather spend $4.95 on dmsguild for a short adventure, picking and choosing, rather than get locked in to a $50 encyclopedia that might be complete suckage.



You have the entire catalog for AL to choose from, fulfilling exactly those criteria. What more do you want?



Parmandur said:


> Yes, that's what I said, a guide with conversion information, not a converted module, like that in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.






darjr said:


> But WotC didn’t do it. They didn’t identify that need. A third party did. WotC filled that need by opening up the IP for third parties on the DMsGuild. So your problems solved.





What they said.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> Apparently there's a DM shortage.



It's chronic, structural or systemic, I'm tempted to say.  DMing has generally been either hard in the sense of requiring talent/creativity/energy at a high level, leading to burnout (an issue, IMX, with 0e/AD&D& 5e, particularly) or hard in the technical and time-sink sense (an issue with 3.x/PF and many other systems) also leading to burnout, or at least frustration.  The player side may be challenging or even frustrating in play, but has only been a time-sink/technical slog in the WotC era (and is less so in 5e).  So we have way more players than DMs because the player side is easier and players don't burn out.


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> It's chronic, structural or systemic, I'm tempted to say.  DMing has generally been either hard in the sense of requiring talent/creativity/energy at a high level, leading to burnout (an issue, IMX, with 0e/AD&D& 5e, particularly) or hard in the technical and time-sink sense (an issue with 3.x/PF and many other systems) also leading to burnout, or at least frustration.  The player side may be challenging or even frustrating in play, but has only been a time-sink/technical slog in the WotC era (and is less so in 5e).  So we have way more players than DMs because the player side is easier and players don't burn out.




I think B/X had a good idea of a variety of short adventures.

Might not need 12 of then but more than 1 independently available (2 now) I suspect would help.

DMs might skew older players but how did they learn?

 Personally I had access to B2,3,4 and X1. Alot if gaming there, you can get through LMoP in around 20-30 hours although I suspect it will be this generations Hommlet or Threshold.


----------



## darjr

Whatever they do I want more public play-tests. In fact I’m almost certain they will do one or a set of them leading up to this kind of change. So my prediction is when it’s imminent, you’ll see a playtest.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> I think B/X had a good idea of a variety of short adventures.
> Might not need 12 of then but more than 1 independently available (2 now) I suspect would help.



 Encounters was a good learning environment. Simple, short, linear adventures, 1 encounter/1-hr session, open entry/exit, fairly low-pressure. New players would graduate to DMing adventures like that very quickly.

AL adventures are more varied, some short, some linear, some sandbox, which is nicer from another PoV. 
But I'm not so sure about the focus on AP.  Maybe it's a good moneymaker, but shorter modules would seem better for early-DM experiences.  I think one reason LMoP gets so much love is that it is fairly short.


----------



## FrogReaver

Zardnaar said:


> If they lose money fair enough it's a bad idea.
> 
> Most people don't know about the DMguikd it seems or use it.
> 
> Or own printers.
> 
> Apparently there's a DM shortage, LMoP is good there and no 3pp item is going to have the exposure of WoTC.
> 
> I don't expect a massive number of modules a few extra would be nice.




I know about it and don't use it!


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> Encounters was a good learning environment. Simple, short, linear adventures, 1 encounter/1-hr session, open entry/exit, fairly low-pressure. New players would graduate to DMing adventures like that very quickly.
> 
> AL adventures are more varied, some short, some linear, some sandbox, which is nicer from another PoV.
> But I'm not so sure about the focus on AP.  Maybe it's a good moneymaker, but shorter modules would seem better for early-DM experiences.  I think one reason LMoP gets so much love is that it is fairly short.




It's easier to write a quality shorter adventure IMHO. It's also hard to get people to care about the end vs meeting a short term goal.

They tried AL here didn't work. DMs didn't go for it.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> They tried AL here didn't work. DMs didn't go for it.



That's too bad.  Still seems to be going strong here - just speaking for the one FLGS, not all CA or USA.   Though, I'm not keeping careful tabs on what's happening at other tables, and I was out for a year, and don't actually recognize a lot of the same regulars.


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> That's too bad.  Still seems to be going strong here - just speaking for the one FLGS, not all CA or USA.   Though, I'm not keeping careful tabs on what's happening at other tables, and I was out for a year, and don't actually recognize a lot of the same regulars.




D&D us going well. 

 The DMs didn't like the drop in drop out nature of it apparently and the rules. 

 They want to run their own games with the right people. That's what I was told anyway.


----------



## teitan

Zardnaar said:


> Do you have a link? Things are on delayed release here takes a month or three to get here. And the distributor sucks.
> 
> It's out in 4 days, not available yet.




I’ve  had it for two months. It is on Amazon.


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> I’ve  had it for two months. It is on Amazon.




It's not out here and postage is expensive.


----------



## teitan

Where is here?

Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Kit (D&D Boxed Set) Amazon.com: Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Kit (D&D Boxed Set): Wizards RPG Team: Toys & Games


----------



## qstor

Each edition give or take, lasts about 6 years so 2020.


----------



## qstor

Aebir-Toril said:


> I agree with other posters who have mentioned WotC's new strategy.
> 
> I don't honestly think WotC will ever, as long as they keep drawing in new players, remove 5e from the market.




I think at some point Hasbro will want a new edition. They won't want to keep reprinting the 5e PHB.


----------



## ART!

I'm sure it's been said, but the impressive success of 5E means that if a 6E happens any time soon, it will really be 5.5E, meaning completely compatible with 5E, but with whatever changes that they hope make the game even more popular.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

And I say Hasbro should publish a "Endless Quest"* board game with easy rules for +7 years children (a free pdf for an advanced system) as hook for new fans, with coins to buy new item. I didn't like the 2002 version because there weren't coins to be collected and there was a limit for the number of weapons. When you find one you had to discard other to keep the new one. And without XPs with automatic leveling up as the "milestones" house rule. Other option is an app for mobile or tablet to the the IA in single-player games (showing when the PCs falls in a hidden trap or is surprised by ambushes) 


Hasbro wants a D&D in the every families' houses and after it will dare to risk with some changes. I have said to try new ideas, for example a different list of abilities scores, one of the sacred cows, better to publish a d20 Modern 2.0. or an Universal d20 (to play G.I.Joe & autobots against the inhumanoids). Maybe we see a Gamma World videogame with hope to be so popular as Fallout saga.  

* (Hero Quest is now trademark by other publisher but "Endless Quest", the name of the game-books, can be used by Hasbro).


----------



## Tony Vargas

So, for everyone (including me) focusing on the current success of 5e as a reason we won't see a new ed, it's interesting to reflect that, at the height of D&D's fad-years popularity, there were 3 editions in print, /concurrently/, and TSR essentially, though with no fanfare, rolled rev on Basic D&D a couple times.

The strategy is different now, it might be WotC will, in even greater contrast to the fad years, decline to roll to a 6e even /after/ 5e plateaus or falls off. 
The rev-roll-to-goose-sales strategy was born of a time when the pool of players was small, dedicated and relatively stable.  Now that it's larger and more casual, a different strategy may be called for in the face of a drop off in sales.


----------



## Parmandur

qstor said:


> I think at some point Hasbro will want a new edition. They won't want to keep reprinting the 5e PHB.




Yes, they do: if they have to reprint it, that's cash money.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> So, for everyone (including me) focusing on the current success of 5e as a reason we won't see a new ed, it's interesting to reflect that, at the height of D&D's fad-years popularity, there were 3 editions in print, /concurrently/, and TSR essentially, though with no fanfare, rolled rev on Basic D&D a couple times.
> 
> The strategy is different now, it might be WotC will, in even greater contrast to the fad years, decline to roll to a 6e even /after/ 5e plateaus or falls off.
> The rev-roll-to-goose-sales strategy was born of a time when the pool of players was small, dedicated and relatively stable.  Now that it's larger and more casual, a different strategy may be called for in the face of a drop off in sales.




"Past results are not indicative of future performance," as they say. The TTRPG industry is so young, as industry goes, that definitive pattern recognition is unlikely.


----------



## generic

qstor said:


> I think at some point Hasbro will want a new edition. They won't want to keep reprinting the 5e PHB.



Why not?  If it sells well, then, who cares if you re-print it endlessly.


----------



## darjr

Hmmm to that point they do employ game designers. They want to design. But I don’t think Hasbro or WotC would want to redo or iterate a version just because. And I dint think WotC would get tired of publishing a bestseller.


----------



## Oofta

darjr said:


> Hmmm to that point they do employ game designers. They want to design. But I don’t think Hasbro or WotC would want to redo or iterate a version just because. And I dint think WotC would get tired of publishing a bestseller.




Which is part of the reason their core staff is kept relatively small.  The initial cost of developing the PHB has long since been recouped, why would they make that investment again until they absolutely have to do so?

Add in a subscription model for tools like DndBeyond and you have a steady cash stream for the foreseeable future.


----------



## darjr

Has it though? It’s been growing, how many now? @Morrus do you have any idea?


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> Has it though? It’s been growing, how many now? @Morrus do you have any idea?



Any idea of what?


----------



## darjr

@Morrus How many D&D employees are at WotC currently?


----------



## Morrus

darjr said:


> How many D&D employees are at WotC currently?



Dunno. I stopped keeping track of that stuff years ago.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

We have to remember now the cadence of titles is lower than previous editions, and most of these is only "refried", remake, without adding many new things. This means they don't need a true update yet. 

The next edition will be something like World of Darkness 20 Anniversary.  

I guess Hasbro's goal is the market of videogames and media (movies and cartoons). Maybe the future of TTRPGs will be like a internet streaming service, if you can watch a serie from Netflix also marvel comics from Disney+, of playing online videogames with cloud-servers.. why not PDFs from DM Guild?  

We will see before action figures of Spelljammer (because it is the D&D line with more "vehicles"?


----------



## darjr

Most? I dint think so.


----------



## Hussar

LuisCarlos17f said:


> We have to remember now the cadence of titles is lower than previous editions, and most of these is only "refried", remake, without adding many new things. This means they don't need a true update yet.
> 
> The next edition will be something like World of Darkness 20 Anniversary.
> 
> I guess Hasbro's goal is the market of videogames and media (movies and cartoons). Maybe the future of TTRPGs will be like a internet streaming service, if you can watch a serie from Netflix also marvel comics from Disney+, of playing online videogames with cloud-servers.. why not PDFs from DM Guild?
> 
> We will see before action figures of Spelljammer (because it is the D&D line with more "vehicles"?




We're already seeing that with the Virtual Tabletops.  Whether Fantasy Grounds or Roll20, you buy the module, it's already "ready" for VTT play and off you go.  It is one of the huge advantages of VTT play.


----------



## Zardnaar

teitan said:


> Where is here?
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Kit (D&D Boxed Set) Amazon.com: Dungeons & Dragons Essentials Kit (D&D Boxed Set): Wizards RPG Team: Toys & Games




New Zealand.

Checked last night flgs can't get it yet. Distributor here sucks and postage can suck. Take the Amazon price and triple it is roughly what we pay here in our currency double it for a very rough conversion to USD.

Nope I'm wrong

Just checked not sure what the postage is but unless it's less than $10 USD it's cheaper to buy locally.





__





						Dungeons and dragons - Search Results at Mighty Ape NZ
					

Check out Dungeons and dragons at Mighty Ape NZ. Shop online for great deals on Dungeons and dragons




					www.mightyape.co.nz
				





1 NZD= 0.63 USD.


----------



## Zardnaar

Hasbro gaming down 17%


Probably more MTG related.


----------



## Audiomancer

Zardnaar said:


> Hasbro gaming down 17%
> 
> 
> Probably more MTG related.




According to CNN:

"Hasbro (HAS) shares plunged nearly 17% Tuesday after the company posted sales and earnings that missed forecasts, due in large part to tariffs on its products."









						Hasbro plunges 17% after getting hit hard by tariffs
					

Hasbro reported sales and earnings for the third quarter that missed forecasts and the stock is plunging on the news. The company blamed tariffs for the poor numbers. Sales of its Nerf, My Little Pony and Play-Doh brands were particularly weak.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## dave2008

Audiomancer said:


> According to CNN:
> 
> "Hasbro (HAS) shares plunged nearly 17% Tuesday after the company posted sales and earnings that missed forecasts, due in large part to tariffs on its products."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hasbro plunges 17% after getting hit hard by tariffs
> 
> 
> Hasbro reported sales and earnings for the third quarter that missed forecasts and the stock is plunging on the news. The company blamed tariffs for the poor numbers. Sales of its Nerf, My Little Pony and Play-Doh brands were particularly weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com



If that is true it probably has to do with their toys mostly.  I seem to remember a lot of "Made in China" labels.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Hasbro is suffering the USA-China trade wars, but it has got still a great future, at least better than Mattel.

I guess Hasbro doesn't want to be bought by Disney because it would be "all eggs in only one basket" and to enjoy complete independence. 

Most of D&D 5th Eds are modules or _refritos_ (refried, recooked), remakes of old things. Really no-module new sourcebooks are Acquisition Inc and Ravnica. The new class "monster slayer" isn't published in paper sourcebook yet although it is canon, isn't it?

Now the strategy is not to publish more books but to increase the number of players and fans. The next step will be to create a d20 system to be used in different genres. This is a true challenge for game designers because monsters are too dangerous or weak if PCs have got enough weapons and item. Do you remember Sebastian Castellanos in "Evil Within"? In the beginning he had to hide like in a survival horror, but later it was a battlefield like a standar shooter. In the DLC "the executioner" the PC as the Keeper, the boss monster with a safe as head  could kill some monsters with only his hammer. D20 system isn't ready yet for a "G.I.Joe vs Transformers" or superheros as alien invaders.

Maybe Hasbro would like to use the d20 system to create a skirmish game (as Mordheim or Necromunda) to be a competitive e-sport, but it would need a lot of playtesting and work by game designers with questions about balance of power as to hire a warmage or a gunslinger, more magic item or gunpowder.  

* Now I am thinking about if Hasbro publishes a "Endless Quest" board game with easy rules for +7y children then other companies could create their own clones using the open licence. And some fans could publish their own amateur "mods".


----------



## Oofta

Zardnaar said:


> Hasbro gaming down 17%
> 
> 
> Probably more MTG related.



It's because of the trade war and tarrifs. Toys are made in China, There's a 20% tarrif taking effect.


----------



## Zardnaar

Oofta said:


> It's because of the trade war and tarrifs. Toys are made in China, There's a 20% tarrif taking effect.




Yeah they say that in the video. I didn't think it would have to much to do with D&D.

The video said tariffs and something involving magic. 

 If they dropped D&D entirely it's less than 17%. It's not a good report but it's not a disaster, they're not bleeding money.


----------



## Oofta

Zardnaar said:


> Yeah they say that in the video. I didn't think it would have to much to do with D&D.
> 
> The video said tariffs and something involving magic.
> 
> If they dropped D&D entirely it's less than 17%. It's not a good report but it's not a disaster, they're not bleeding money.



When it comes to a company like Hasbro, D&D (or even MTG) is a pretty minor item on the budget sheet.  D&D does gangbusters compared to other RPGs, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the toy business.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, when sales do inevitably drop they can still keep publishing books as long as the books can be sold at a reasonable profit.  Unlike the TSR days, the company won't go under if sales slow significantly.


----------



## CydKnight

When we look at the history of all the D&D versions released to date, the releases span between roughly 3 years (v3.0 - v3.5) and 12 years (v1 to v2).  I would expect something in between that time frame going strictly by the track record we have.

My personal opinion is that 5E could last longer than any other previous version based on it's adaptability and from feedback received from other players.  Of course there could be a number of tweaks in the form of official releases such as we have already had in the meantime.


----------



## Zardnaar

CydKnight said:


> When we look at the history of all the D&D versions released to date, the releases span between roughly 3 years (v3.0 - v3.5) and 12 years (v1 to v2).  I would expect something in between that time frame going strictly by the track record we have.
> 
> My personal opinion is that 5E could last longer than any other previous version based on it's adaptability and from feedback received from other players.  Of course there could be a number of tweaks in the form of official releases such as we have already had in the meantime.



M 1E was printed into 2E that's unique so was in print for 13 years.

BECMI was technically in print 17 years but it wasn't continuous and was anywhere between 3-5+ sub versions depending on how you count it. 

 I would expect a long run anything less than 10 years would be a surprise, anything longer than 13 also a surprise. 

A new MMO could be a sleeper hit for example. 

 If it was less than 10 years I would expect a recession or some other major eventv(Hasbro loses money, hostile takeover, new CEO, new game of some description).


----------



## CydKnight

Zardnaar said:


> M 1E was printed into 2E that's unique so was in print for 13 years.
> 
> BECMI was technically in print 17 years but it wasn't continuous and was anywhere between 3-5+ sub versions depending on how you count it.
> 
> I would expect a long run anything less than 10 years would be a surprise, anything longer than 13 also a surprise.
> 
> A new MMO could be a sleeper hit for example.
> 
> If it was less than 10 years I would expect a recession or some other major eventv(Hasbro loses money, hostile takeover, new CEO, new game of some description).



And you may ultimately be correct that we see a completely new release in a span ranging 10 - 13 years.  The culmination of previous versions of the game ultimately led us to 5E.  It is the progression to 5th edition and my assumption (perhaps misguided) that each new release leads closer to a more perfect verson (if such a thing exists).  I freely admit that my personal biases surrounding my experience with 5E also lead me to my opinion that it may last longer perhaps with many updates.  Still there are many unknowns to factor such as technology, new story lines, and even social tendencies.


----------



## Undrave

Oofta said:


> It's because of the trade war and tarrifs. Toys are made in China, There's a 20% tarrif taking effect.




Transformers production moved to Viet-nam...


----------



## Zardnaar

Undrave said:


> Transformers production moved to Viet-nam...




Lots of things are moving to Vietnam.
China's to expensive along with other problems (it's a police state, corrupt etc).

There's also a really big housing bubble over there.


----------



## teitan

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Hasbro is suffering the USA-China trade wars, but it has got still a great future, at least better than Mattel.
> 
> I guess Hasbro doesn't want to be bought by Disney because it would be "all eggs in only one basket" and to enjoy complete independence.
> 
> Most of D&D 5th Eds are modules or _refritos_ (refried, recooked), remakes of old things. Really no-module new sourcebooks are Acquisition Inc and Ravnica. The new class "monster slayer" isn't published in paper sourcebook yet although it is canon, isn't it?
> 
> Now the strategy is not to publish more books but to increase the number of players and fans. The next step will be to create a d20 system to be used in different genres. This is a true challenge for game designers because monsters are too dangerous or weak if PCs have got enough weapons and item. Do you remember Sebastian Castellanos in "Evil Within"? In the beginning he had to hide like in a survival horror, but later it was a battlefield like a standar shooter. In the DLC "the executioner" the PC as the Keeper, the boss monster with a safe as head  could kill some monsters with only his hammer. D20 system isn't ready yet for a "G.I.Joe vs Transformers" or superheros as alien invaders.
> 
> Maybe Hasbro would like to use the d20 system to create a skirmish game (as Mordheim or Necromunda) to be a competitive e-sport, but it would need a lot of playtesting and work by game designers with questions about balance of power as to hire a warmage or a gunslinger, more magic item or gunpowder.
> 
> * Now I am thinking about if Hasbro publishes a "Endless Quest" board game with easy rules for +7y children then other companies could create their own clones using the open licence. And some fans could publish their own amateur "mods".




You keep saying the next strategy is a generic game but I see no indications beyond your assertions. Everything seems to point to just focusing on D&D and no other RPG lines. You've also asserted that all the modules are remakes or reworkings of old material. While I can see a very, very surface interpretation of Tyranny of Dragons being... kinda like Dragonlance, it's nothing like Dragonlance. Dragon Heist is pretty unique, I mean sure, it's a city adventure but I can't think of an adventure it's a remake or rework of. Out of the Abyss made a reference to Alice in Wonderland so maybe a very tenuous stretch to EX series but not really and it isn't really DQ series either. WHat's it a remake of? Baldur's Gate: Descent? It's Planescape but not very similar to any of the old Planescape materials. Is it because it's set in Baldur's Gate? I get Storm King's Thunder, sure, it's thematic like Against the Giants. Saltmarsh, PotA, Undermountain, sure, yeah remakes and updates but you're kind of exaggerating the issue.


----------



## Zardnaar

It's more throwbacks to previous adventures.

 CoS and PotA. It's not inherently bad.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Zardnaar said:


> Lots of things are moving to Vietnam.



Fantasy, for instance!

…"Fantasy Vietnam?"  ...no?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Highly doubt you will see a new edition of D&D for at least 4 years, for two reasons.

1. 5e is designed as a fairly slim ruleset, making it easier to pick up and play for newer players. That also means its a much better ruleset to create new and more complicated rules for. Any new edition, to rival 5e, would likely have to match its simplicity.

2. Wizards has been pretty open that they have plenty of new material to adapt, including new settings and more innovative adventures.


----------



## Zardnaar

Tony Vargas said:


> Fantasy, for instance!
> 
> …"Fantasy Vietnam?"  ...no?




Tucker's Kobolds.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Weeeell, but I come from the video game end of things: I played World of Warcraft when it was new and hip, I played Bards Tale and Dragon Wars (never saw a dragon, there was no war?) when they were old and I had no idea how the game's worked because I was 7.
> 
> Coming from a video game background, 5E is more accessible than 4E, whose "video gaminess" was always overblown. It really is more of a miniatures war game in style.
> 
> One thing 5E has going for it, is that it leans into the parts of TTRPGing that video games can't replicate, and easing up on the areas where computers will always be better.



Also, most of the war gamers I know didn’t think 4e played anything like one, and most ardent 4e players I know were never into war games. 

Because 4e didn’t play like a war game, at all.


----------



## Tallifer

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, most of the war gamers I know didn’t think 4e played anything like one, and most ardent 4e players I know were never into war games.
> 
> Because 4e didn’t play like a war game, at all.




Forsooth. People also say 4E played like an MMORPG, but I played and enjoyed Dark Age of Camelot for over four years, and the even more enjoyable 4E felt nothing like that.


----------



## GreyLord

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, most of the war gamers I know didn’t think 4e played anything like one, and most ardent 4e players I know were never into war games.
> 
> Because 4e didn’t play like a war game, at all.




I've been a hardcore wargamer.  I'm typically a board wargamer (boards, chits, etc) rather than a miniatures wargamer.

Most wargamers of my class did not play 4e (though I did), but most of them that are the hardcores and the old fogies don't play D&D period.

Of the miniatures wargamers many played 4e.  4e was FAR closer to the original roots of OD&D wargaming from a wargamer's perspective than most other games that have come since AD&D.  The ONLY one that I'd say was closer is probably 3.5 in regards to how rules and such work

In fact, 3.5 would probably be the only one that I could translate into a skirmish type miniatures wargame overall that would appeal to the general miniatures wargamer.

4e on the otherhand is overblow with how much people talk about videogames and such.  The FIRST TIME I READ through 3e, do you know what I thought...they are trying to recreate Diablo 2.  It had far MORE items to me in regards to the current video games of the time in it's appeal with feats such as whirlwind (direct rip off of a Diablo power) and feat trees.

4e had some WoW ideas thrown in, but in other ways (fixed XP table for one, more XP to actually advance than the quick advancement table of 3e and 3.5) was a throw back to some of the more traditional elements of D&D.  However, the problem with 4e that I see many have is not the core of the system (which is actually essentially a simplified form of 3e and 3.5) but the powers system that is attached to it and runs most of the show in combat.  I feel it was more the powers systems and the portrayal of 4e as well as marketing that put a bad taste for it in many gamer's mouths.  It took the excesses of 3.5 too far for a LOT of gamers and rather than tamper down on restrictions and special powers, ramped it up far past 11.  Everything in combat became situational and players did not feel as if they had the freedom to act as they wanted.

In this I see a 5e that has gone the opposite direction inspiring a more free form approach to the rules (though there are still plenty of those who want to play it as specific and restricted as possible) while tamping down on the powers and specific abilities and moves that restrict others from doing similar things.

Back on subject.   4e didn't really play like a wargame, even a board and chits wargame.  However, to me it did feel like it played like a BOARD GAME in combat encounters...not a wargame boardgame, but more like a boardgame similar to things such as Talisman, or Descent, or Warhammer quest or Heroquest.  

That isn't a wargame per se, but more a miniatures boardgame.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I dare to say it will be at least later a second videogame after Baldur's Gate 3. And a videogame with d20 system but set in the modern age or space opera.


----------



## gyor

Parmandur said:


> PHB2 will never happen, because WotC figured out it hurts their sales. Same thing with targeted books. Odd compilation books are where the money is, not slicing up the market.
> 
> They have increased the pace of release considerably: last year there were four hardcovers, this year there were four hardcovers and three new boxed sets.




 For hard cover books they have released Aquisistions Inq, Saltmarsh, BG: DiA, Tyranny of Dragons, and soon Eberron: Rising From the Last War,  that is 5 hardcover books.

 I will add 2 Beatles and Grim products will also be released this year,  a BG: DiA plantium edition and Eberron Gold Edition. 

 Now for 2020 I don't know how many box sets and hard covers they will release for D&D. How many different starter boxes can they release? Nu

 Perhaps they make box sets for settings instead of starter sets. 

 The books I think they will be releasing I think for 2019 are Exandia, Desert of Desolation AP,  Planescape/MtG book/manual of the planes book,  a Kara Tur/Al Qadim Setting book,  and a BG3 tie in AP.


----------



## Arnwolf666

LuisCarlos17f said:


> How to explain it with an example? Do you know the car tuning? Hasbro doesn't want to sell lots of pieces of car tuning but the goal is a car in all homes, and after selling pieces for car tuning. Hasbro want to sell the doll, and after when are the girls with one, then to sell clothes for this doll (and the car, and the house, and the pets..)
> 
> You can create your house rules, but these to become official is different. If those changes aren't in the retroclon games it will be because some reason. You can create new rules for other board game as Risk or Monopoly, but to sell more they game needs simple rules to be easy to be learnt by the new players.
> 
> Hasbro doesn't want a D&D like a Dark Souls for hardcore gamers but a Mario Bros for the new players who are starting. Hasbro doesn't want to sell a hard challenge for fans of model building but a "kindergarten block kit".  Hasbro doesn't want to sell a Shakespeare's or Tolstoi novel but a Julio Verne or Emilio Salgari's book adapted to teen public.
> 
> 3.5 was lot of crunch (feat, spells, magic item..) and now 5th Ed is recycling the fluff (lore or background). A new edition only can be after when nothing new can be added. With DM Guild you have enough crunch to fill up. WotC doesn't need risks yet, but to publish something 3rd party publishers can't sell so good.
> 
> The next edition will not be D&D but a different name, for example Universal d20 system, and with a feedback not only from players, but with idead from the own 3rd Party publishers to can be added to their own settings (for example Courage as ability score for a gothic horror setting).




I agree with you until the last paragraph. The next edition will be d&d. The brand name is too valuable to give up.


----------



## Parmandur

GreyLord said:


> I've been a hardcore wargamer.  I'm typically a board wargamer (boards, chits, etc) rather than a miniatures wargamer.
> 
> Most wargamers of my class did not play 4e (though I did), but most of them that are the hardcores and the old fogies don't play D&D period.
> 
> Of the miniatures wargamers many played 4e.  4e was FAR closer to the original roots of OD&D wargaming from a wargamer's perspective than most other games that have come since AD&D.  The ONLY one that I'd say was closer is probably 3.5 in regards to how rules and such work
> 
> In fact, 3.5 would probably be the only one that I could translate into a skirmish type miniatures wargame overall that would appeal to the general miniatures wargamer.
> 
> 4e on the otherhand is overblow with how much people talk about videogames and such.  The FIRST TIME I READ through 3e, do you know what I thought...they are trying to recreate Diablo 2.  It had far MORE items to me in regards to the current video games of the time in it's appeal with feats such as whirlwind (direct rip off of a Diablo power) and feat trees.
> 
> 4e had some WoW ideas thrown in, but in other ways (fixed XP table for one, more XP to actually advance than the quick advancement table of 3e and 3.5) was a throw back to some of the more traditional elements of D&D.  However, the problem with 4e that I see many have is not the core of the system (which is actually essentially a simplified form of 3e and 3.5) but the powers system that is attached to it and runs most of the show in combat.  I feel it was more the powers systems and the portrayal of 4e as well as marketing that put a bad taste for it in many gamer's mouths.  It took the excesses of 3.5 too far for a LOT of gamers and rather than tamper down on restrictions and special powers, ramped it up far past 11.  Everything in combat became situational and players did not feel as if they had the freedom to act as they wanted.
> 
> In this I see a 5e that has gone the opposite direction inspiring a more free form approach to the rules (though there are still plenty of those who want to play it as specific and restricted as possible) while tamping down on the powers and specific abilities and moves that restrict others from doing similar things.
> 
> Back on subject.   4e didn't really play like a wargame, even a board and chits wargame.  However, to me it did feel like it played like a BOARD GAME in combat encounters...not a wargame boardgame, but more like a boardgame similar to things such as Talisman, or Descent, or Warhammer quest or Heroquest.
> 
> That isn't a wargame per se, but more a miniatures boardgame.




It ia notable that 4E rules are still being used for new board games.


----------



## Parmandur

gyor said:


> For hard cover books they have released Aquisistions Inq, Saltmarsh, BG: DiA, Tyranny of Dragons, and soon Eberron: Rising From the Last War,  that is 5 hardcover books.
> 
> I will add 2 Beatles and Grim products will also be released this year,  a BG: DiA plantium edition and Eberron Gold Edition.
> 
> Now for 2020 I don't know how many box sets and hard covers they will release for D&D. How many different starter boxes can they release? Nu
> 
> Perhaps they make box sets for settings instead of starter sets.
> 
> The books I think they will be releasing I think for 2019 are Exandia, Desert of Desolation AP,  Planescape/MtG book/manual of the planes book,  a Kara Tur/Al Qadim Setting book,  and a BG3 tie in AP.




Tyranny of Dragons is a limited run premium reprint, not a new book.


----------



## gyor

Parmandur said:


> Tyranny of Dragons is a limited run premium reprint, not a new book.




 It has some new content,  the original books were seperate books,  so I'm counting it.


----------



## gyor

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I dare to say it will be at least later a second videogame after Baldur's Gate 3. And a videogame with d20 system but set in the modern age or space opera.




 I think there will be more then just a second game for D&D. If BG3 is a smash hit and I think it will be,  then their will be a push for sequel on Larian Studios. Then their is WotC's own Tuque Studios games. And one can't rule out other game Studios making deals with WotC for access so some of their other settings, like all the Studios that wanted to make BG3. Or even a Studio making NWN3 or Pool of Radiance 3, of Temple of Elemental Evil 2 ect...


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

But the experience working with the videogames will teach a lot of things, something like a hardcore playtesting for possible modules. Should I to buy a expensive magic wand, gunpowder & firearms, or to hire a squire to reload my crossbows from behind a tower shield? can I send my familiar to leave a paper with a magic teletransportation rune to go to a far zone, avoiding a hard climbing or rooms with traps? With informatic simulations they are going to test the rules about mass battles, ship fights, sieges against strongholds or skirmishes against warbands. 

D20 system is nice for fantasy but it isn't ready for crossovers with different genres, for example planetary romance, postapocalypse or space opera, because the XPs reward should be different if modern technology allow a enemy to be too easier or harder to be defeated. 

Let's imagine they want to publish a videogame about investigation and paranormal horror, like "the sinking city", with puzzles. The game studio may notice they need some changes and even to create a new d20 system killing some sacred cows as the six abilities scores. (Sometimes in the past I have suggested new abilities scores, courage(bravery), acuity (perception + astuteness) and spirit (karma/fate/luck/guardian angel, faith, hope and resistance against supernatural influences).  

If it works, why to change it? Now players want the return or update of their favorite titles, and later new things will start to be published. And the cadence of books is slower, most of these are modules or bluff/lore/background than crunch(spells, feats, magic item, subclasses, races). 

Before the next edition a new original setting will have to be published. When I say original I mean a new IP starting from zero, not the adaptation of other known franchise (like a videogame or movie saga). In the last years of an edition they dare to risk and to publish new ideas for classes with some special mechanic (incarnum, martial maneuvers, truename, vestige pacts, shadow mysteries). 

And if the projects for the mass media (movies, videogames and teleseries in streaming services) are enough successful then a new edition would be too risky, not yet until there are too many complains about broken balance of power.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> It ia notable that 4E rules are still being used for new board games.



I recall Castle Ravenloft,  &c, they did use recognizable rules from 4e, to the point they made a nice on-ramp. 4e was a simpler, more accessible system in a lot of ways, it just had a lot more material a lot faster.

It'd seem odd, at this point not to make any new D&D board game based on 5e, to be a lead-in to it.  But....4e & 5e share more DNA than it might seem, are you sure you're not just seeing a simplified 5e in whatever game you're talking about?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Tyranny of Dragons is a limited run premium reprint, not a new book.





gyor said:


> It has some new content,  the original books were seperate books,  so I'm counting it.



Did new content include fixing the broken encounters?


----------



## gyor

Tony Vargas said:


> Did new content include fixing the broken encounters?




 I would assume so,  but I don't own it (but I love the cover art).


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Did new content include fixing the broken encounters?




That was basically all they did, and Adda concept art gallery.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I recall Castle Ravenloft,  &c, they did use recognizable rules from 4e, to the point they made a nice on-ramp. 4e was a simpler, more accessible system in a lot of ways, it just had a lot more material a lot faster.
> 
> It'd seem odd, at this point not to make any new D&D board game based on 5e, to be a lead-in to it.  But....4e & 5e share more DNA than it might seem, are you sure you're not just seeing a simplified 5e in whatever game you're talking about?




No, the new Dungeon of the Mad Mage boardgame uses the same rules as the Castle Ravenloft boardgame, which is itself still in print (also Princes of the Apocalypse, Tomb of Annihilation and the other older versions of the game like Legend of Drizzt and Wrath of Asharladon (sp?)).

They have specifically said they have no plans to update the board game to fit 5E rules, because they have a greater value in supporting the boardgame fanbase with continuing to use 4E compatible rules. Go figure.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I recall Castle Ravenloft,  &c, they did use recognizable rules from 4e, to the point they made a nice on-ramp. 4e was a simpler, more accessible system in a lot of ways, it just had a lot more material a lot faster.
> 
> It'd seem odd, at this point not to make any new D&D board game based on 5e, to be a lead-in to it.  But....4e & 5e share more DNA than it might seem, are you sure you're not just seeing a simplified 5e in whatever game you're talking about?




For reference, showing details about the rules and how they ha e published three new 4E boardgames in the past 4 years:









						Series: Dungeons & Dragons Adventure System Board Games
					

Based on Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, this tile exploration game brings the basics of RPGs to the Board Game realm.  Using pre-generated characters and random monster encounters with defined tactics, no Dungeon Master is required.  Explore castles, mountain caverns, and the realms of the...




					boardgamegeek.com


----------



## gyor

Parmandur said:


> For reference, showing details about the rules and how they ha e published three new 4E boardgames in the past 4 years:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Series: Dungeons & Dragons Adventure System Board Games
> 
> 
> Based on Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, this tile exploration game brings the basics of RPGs to the Board Game realm.  Using pre-generated characters and random monster encounters with defined tactics, no Dungeon Master is required.  Explore castles, mountain caverns, and the realms of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boardgamegeek.com




 In a sense 4e lives on. For 4e fans how reusable are elements from the board game for playing regular 4e D&D?


----------



## darjr

Not very.


----------



## darjr

I buy them used for the miniatures, I do like the board game but I never really get it to the table. I know it’s played a lot by other folks I know.


----------



## Parmandur

gyor said:


> In a sense 4e lives on. For 4e fans how reusable are elements from the board game for playing regular 4e D&D?




It's not really super lootable for RPG purposes, though you could probably reverse engineer boardgame material from the 4E books...


----------



## Parmandur

gyor said:


> It has some new content,  the original books were seperate books,  so I'm counting it.




I have the book and have read it: the new material in terms of intro, organization and the art gallery is minimal though I am happy with it. It is a premium reprint with Errata, released in select hobby shops.


----------



## darjr

I suppose you could use the tiles too? But I wouldn’t.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> They have specifically said they have no plans to update the board game to fit 5E rules, because they have a greater value in supporting the boardgame fanbase with continuing to use 4E compatible rules. Go figure.



Wow, that makes less than sense than usual.

For one thing the basic mechanics are hardly different, at all.  And stand-out differences, like BA, wouldn't even come up.  Guess it's been too long - 9 years? - since I played castle ravenloft, I can't think how 5e-izing 'em would screw it up.

For another, that there's even a 'board game fanbase' to support, separately.


----------



## Tony Vargas

darjr said:


> I buy them used for the miniatures, I do like the board game but I never really get it to the table. I know it’s played a lot by other folks I know.



Yeah, the 'bone' style minis in castle Ravenloft have seen some use - I've long since adopted a table convention of minis for PCs & allies, tokens for monsters/enemies, myself, though.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Wow, that makes less than sense than usual.
> 
> For one thing the basic mechanics are hardly different, at all.  And stand-out differences, like BA, wouldn't even come up.  Guess it's been too long - 9 years? - since I played castle ravenloft, I can't think how 5e-izing 'em would screw it up.
> 
> For another, that there's even a 'board game fanbase' to support, separately.




No reason for them to split the boardgame fanbase. If the game has continued to sell for 9 years, no need to rock the boat.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> No reason for them to split the boardgame fanbase. If the game has continued to sell for 9 years, no need to rock the boat.



The decision point wouldve been 4 or 5 years ago, and, while I can see being funny after the carnage if the edition war, I'd see no reason to think whatever fan base the boardgames had at that time would've been as entrenched and violently resistant to change as that.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> The decision point wouldve been 4 or 5 years ago, and, while I can see being funny after the carnage if the edition war, I'd see no reason to think whatever fan base the boardgames had at that time would've been as entrenched and violently resistant to change as that.




Well, the game's still sell: they are not things that used to sell, bit have stopped selling. As such, it would be bad business to ruin backwards compatibility moving forwards.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Well, the game's still sell...
> it would be bad business to ruin backwards compatibility moving forwards.



Yeah, but they stopped being an on-ramp to D&D, their parent line.  It doesn't make sense to ruin that compatibility, either.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, but they stopped being an on-ramp to D&D, their parent line.  It doesn't make sense to ruin that compatibility, either.




Mearls said during the Happy Fun Hour, when asked if they would receive a 5E facelift, that these boardgames are still working as an on-ramp, and aren't confusing anybody. Boardgames and RPGs are different beasts, after all.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> Mearls said during the Happy Fun Hour, when asked if they would receive a 5E facelift, that these boardgames are still working as an on-ramp, and aren't confusing anybody.



That's the same guy who said a PH2 on the shelf was too confusing.


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, but they stopped being an on-ramp to D&D, their parent line.  It doesn't make sense to ruin that compatibility, either.




That's the thing though. As you say yourself @Tony Vargas - the rules between 4e and 5e aren't actually all that different.  So, there's no real need for a change in the rules for the board game to still work as an on ramp to D&D. Sure, there are some minor, cosmetic differences mechanically between 4e and 5e (healing surges and encounter balance probably being the biggest ones) but, overall, anyone who can read a 4e character sheet can read a 5e character sheet without any real difficulty.  

5e is mostly backward compatible with 4e - there aren't that many mechanical changes.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> That's the thing though. As you say yourself  - the rules between 4e and 5e aren't actually all that different.



 Well, I was more sorta quoting you without attribution, if I'm being honest.



> 5e is mostly backward compatible with 4e - there aren't that many mechanical changes.



 Heck, the first few levels I've found 5e backwards compatible with 1e.


----------



## darjr

I would LOVE a more 5e style board game. But these are fine.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> That's the same guy who said a PH2 on the shelf was too confusing.




That's true, though it was more Nate Stewart who figured that out: the enumerated Core book approach was a terrible decision in retrospect.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> That's true,.



 Managing IP ends up being a lot like politics, that way.


----------



## Weiley31

Honestly? I hope never/not for a good long time.

I'm going to be starting DnD for the first time very soon and already I've invested in Tyranny of Dragons(2019), Descent into Avernus, Mists of Akuma(Third Party), and The Essentials Starter Kit.

Once I get the PHB/DMG and Ebberon, it's on!!! Super excited. Been wanting to play for A LONG TIME but nobody I knew played it. So DMing for the first time as well.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Managing IP ends up being a lot like politics, that way.




It was a bad idea, that does confusion among customers. It is good that they are not repeating that particular mistake.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> It was a bad idea, that does confusion among customers. It is good that they are not repeating that particular mistake.



 But, like politics, good idea or bad idea, stay on message.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> But, like politics, good idea or bad idea, stay on message.




In business, bad plans fail and ought not to be repeated once the reasons have been identified.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> In business, bad plans fail and ought not to be repeated once the reasons have been identified.



 Well, if acknowledging the reasons wouldn't be an equally bad idea....


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, if acknowledging the reasons wouldn't be an equally bad idea....




The main reason is that people avoid buying the PHB, and go for the PHB 2 or 3 and get confused when they can't figure out how to play...or worse, don't buy the book.

It's pretty cut and dried: it did not work in practice.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> The main reason is that people avoid buying the PHB, and go for the PHB 2 or 3 and get confused when they can't figure out how to play...or worse, don't buy the book.
> 
> It's pretty cut and dried: it did not work in practice.



 Except it had worked fine when 3.5 had a PH2 on the shelf.

And the solution to that supposed confusion was 10 products labeled "essential," none of them clearly titled as for players.

And, now, there's no issue with an "on ramp" related product being out of synch?

Sorry, in this case the party line is a bit implausible.  I'm sure there's something that'd make sense if it, but you don't have access to it.

Thanks for the link about the boardgames, though, I had no idea they were continuations of the same line as Castle Ravenloft.


----------



## happyhermit

But "Player's Handbook 2" is so evocative, so inspiring, surely something of great value is lost if that (apparently?) sacred cow dies. Think of the children.


----------



## Tony Vargas

happyhermit said:


> But "Player's Handbook 2" is so evocative, so inspiring, surely something of great value is lost if that (apparently?) sacred cow dies. Think of the children.



I'm sure there's tables not using stuff in XGtE and a few other sources because all the player stuff wasn't just put in a book with "Player's" on the cover.  And, while some of those may have been better had they gotten to do so, others of them, I'm sure are headed by a DM dreadful to not have to deal with any of it.

And, I don't think anything calved in 3.5 can claim bovine sanctity.  Really have to date back to TSR for that.


----------



## R_J_K75

Saelorn said:


> Not soon enough, that's for certain. I was ready for 6E in 2017.




More I play 5E the more I dont like it.  I hope they come out with 6E soon or Im switching back to 2E.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

My suggestion is Hasbro to buy the Spanish little company Gamezone (now this isn't in its best time) to publish a reboot of the classic dungeon-crawling board game "Hero Quest", but now with the name "Endless Quest" by trademark matters. 

With easy rules to get new players among +7 children. And publishing a free app for mobile to be the AI in solo games. And I would add as expansion a pack of unusual dices (1d5,1d7,1d9,1d14,1d16,1d18,1d22,1d24,1d30) because some players love creating house rules. And now what I think about that, with this "Endless Quest" they could allow themself some risks with little changes in the rules, for example adding new abilities scores: courage(bravery), acuity (astuteness and perception, noticing about little details as clues for an investigation) and spirit (resistance against supernatural forces, luck, karma, fate, guardian angel, blessed by a state of grace). And these rules should be open licence, because if more companies publish dungeon-crawling board games then more players will buy the most popular title.   

If there is a 6th Ed maybe the classes and races will be like Pathfinder 2, an optional list of feats, easy to be replaced with subclasses/archetypes and subraces. 

I have said in previous post the next edition will be after a transitional spin-off, something like Starfinder, but with other franchises as Gamma World, Star*Drive or Star Frontiers, or a "one-shot" adapting some famous videogame, for example Overwatch or Fortnite: Save the World.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sure there's tables not using stuff in XGtE and a few other sources because all the player stuff wasn't just put in a book with "Player's" on the cover.  And, while some of those may have been better had they gotten to do so, others of them, I'm sure are headed by a DM dreadful to not have to deal with any of it.
> 
> And, I don't think anything calved in 3.5 can claim bovine sanctity.  Really have to date back to TSR for that.




Xanathar's Guide is the best selling supplement in the history of the game: I think it's OK.

Just because you aren't happy with what was found doesn't make it untrue: it seems very true to my knowledge of psychology.


----------



## Arnwolf666

Really they should just do a new edition every year that is released in November. The edition can be renamed for the year. Right now edition 2020 should be coming out because it is the Edition that should be used for 2020. Some years the changes will only be minor corrections.  But they should look at what has and has not been working for the year and make appropriate changes.  Additionally there will be a terms and conditions that must be signed for all purchases. And at that time you must turn in your previous books from the last year to be burned. Banning of all earlier editions is a must. Also as according to the terms and conditions your home and locations of play may be investigated randomly to insure no one is playing the wrong edition and that everyone is playing by the same rules. No house rules allowed. We have to do everything possible to insure that everyone has the same shared experience. We can not tolerate an environment where every player in the world is not having the same shared experience. Strangely China is really on board with this.


----------



## darjr

I think players handbook 2 came out long after 3.5 was out, and long after 3.0. 4es PH2 was almost right away. I could be misremembering


----------



## Arnwolf666

Arnwolf666 said:


> Really they should just do a new edition every year that is released in November. The edition can be renamed for the year. Right now edition 2020 should be coming out because it is the Edition that should be used for 2020. Some years the changes will only be minor corrections.  But they should look at what has and has not been working for the year and make appropriate changes.  Additionally there will be a terms and conditions that must be signed for all purchases. And at that time you must turn in your previous books from the last year to be burned. Banning of all earlier editions is a must. Also as according to the terms and conditions your home and locations of play may be investigated randomly to insure no one is playing the wrong edition and that everyone is playing by the same rules. No house rules allowed. We have to do everything possible to insure that everyone has the same shared experience. We can not tolerate an environment where every player in the world is not having the same shared experience. Strangely China is really on board with this.




I think somewhere In the terms and conditions there is a line where you sell your to Asmodeus for the right to play the game. This is not as bad as you thing as he is the greatest rules lawyer in the multiverse. His rulings are RAW yet at the same time very challenging. This is good for those people that find 5E too easy. There is more risk. But he will already own your Soul So that is motivation to play well.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sure there's tables not using stuff in XGtE and a few other sources because all the player stuff wasn't just put in a book with "Player's" on the cover.  And, while some of those may have been better had they gotten to do so, others of them, I'm sure are headed by a DM dreadful to not have to deal with any of it.
> 
> And, I don't think anything calved in 3.5 can claim bovine sanctity.  Really have to date back to TSR for that.




I mean, yeah of course. You don't need XGtE to run a game. Because... it's not a PHB 2.


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> I mean, yeah of course. You don't need XGtE to run a game. Because... it's not a PHB 2.




You didn't need the PHB2, either, but again that was part of the botched marketing that style represented..


----------



## Tony Vargas

Parmandur said:


> You didn't need the PHB2, either, but again that was part of the botched marketing that style represented..



Which caused 3.5 so much trouble, they never tried it again....

...Y'know, if we ever do see a 6e (and I'm not at all convinced we ever will - 5e is only barely acknowledged as such), not just themed special editions or nth printings with new art and the like,  it'll probably be preceded by some  of the same sort og odd proclemations.  If sales finally drop off for some marketing-inconvient reason, pick something that hasn't been a problem, before, point the finger and 'fix' it.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Tony Vargas said:


> Which caused 3.5 so much trouble, they never tried it again....
> 
> ...Y'know, if we ever do see a 6e (and I'm not at all convinced we ever will - 5e is only barely acknowledged as such), not just themed special editions or nth printings with new art and the like,  it'll probably be preceded by some  of the same sort og odd proclemations.  If sales finally drop off for some marketing-inconvient reason, pick something that hasn't been a problem, before, point the finger and 'fix' it.




Can you provide a theoretical example, as I largely don't understand this statement.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Urriak Uruk said:


> Can you provide a theoretical example, as I largely don't understand this statement.



Nope, I've got no actual conspiracy theory to insert in place of the implausible explanation we've been given.  
I just can't quite buy that the folks buying D&D in 2010 were that much more easily confused than in 2006. I mean, I suppose it'd been a tough few years for a lotta us....


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Tony Vargas said:


> Nope, I've got no actual conspiracy theory to insert in place of the implausible explanation we've been given.
> I just can't quite buy that the folks buying D&D in 2010 were that much more easily confused than in 2006. I mean, I suppose it'd been a tough few years for a lotta us....




I actually disagree with this entirely. It's not that people are more easily confused, it's just that there are more new players. And having a bunch of rulebooks with similar names is going to confuse new players, not because of their age or anything but because they're new to the game and learning any new game is difficult.

I mean, pretty much everyone I know plays Monopoly incorrectly (auctioning property if someone doesn't buy it is in the rulebook), and that's the most popular boardgame of all time.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Nope, I've got no actual conspiracy theory to insert in place of the implausible explanation we've been given.
> I just can't quite buy that the folks buying D&D in 2010 were that much more easily confused than in 2006. I mean, I suppose it'd been a tough few years for a lotta us....




WOTC has done significant polling and research.  They have real data and feedback that a book labeled "Players Handbook 2" is confusing for a significant portion of the public.  There will be new books with player, monster and DM options.  They just won't be labeled [core book] 2.

So what exactly are you arguing?  That because it's not confusing to you that it cannot be confusing to anyone?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Urriak Uruk said:


> I actually disagree with this entirely. It's not that people are more easily confused, it's just that there are more new players. And having a bunch of rulebooks with similar names is going to confuse new players...



I mean, that's not crazy or anything:  if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing... 
….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players?  While leaving the offending numbered book in print?   
And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition?  Surely that's at least as confusing?

I mean, I know I'm confused.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

R_J_K75 said:


> More I play 5E the more I dont like it.  I hope they come out with 6E soon or Im switching back to 2E.



Second Edition is pretty clunky, but it does at least avoid the major faults of 5E. Honestly, though, the best course for that would probably be one of the competent retro-clones.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, that's not crazy or anything:  if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing...
> ….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players?  While leaving the offending numbered book in print?
> And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition?  Surely that's at least as confusing?
> 
> I mean, I know I'm confused.




Well, what you are stating is kind of confusing.  After all, new books have added the same things we've seen in "[core book] 2".  Are you confused by Volo's guide to monsters?

To me, the devs having more flexibility with the type of book they publish in addition to being less confusing to new players in addition to not causing any other negative side effects makes this a no brainer.

Even if the only advantage was that they don't have to fill a new book with _just_ new monsters, they can give more in depth info on existing monsters is good enough for me.  Even if it does confuse some old grognards.


----------



## R_J_K75

Saelorn said:


> Second Edition is pretty clunky, but it does at least avoid the major faults of 5E. Honestly, though, the best course for that would probably be one of the competent retro-clones.




Im not financially in a position to invest in a new game system.  I bought 1 or 2 about 10 years ago and they sat on my bookshelf until I sold them.  5E just isnt doing it for me, but I cant quite figure out why.  4E is out of the question, and 3.x/Pathfinder are too complex for my tastes at this point.  Think I'll dust off my 2E books and read through them and decide what to do.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

3.5 edition was published in 2003, and PH 2 in 2006.

If you have learnt strategy as military professional, fan of wargames or as businesment manager you know after starting the plans have to change and adapt. If WotC has got a plan for the next years this isn't written on stone but should be enoughly flexible to adapt to new situations. 

I have said now the cadence of sourcebooks with "crunch" is slower, most of titles are modules or background. This means the balance of power isn't broken yet and nothing has to be fixed. And the metaplot is totally stopped, frozen. My theory is the futures plans about the metaplot of all the lines may be linked with the future projects about mass media (videogames, movies and teleseries in streaming services). 

In my opinion the current strategy is the return of old lines: (after Eberron) Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Kara-tur, Greyhawk, and some pieces of recycled/updated crunch about classes and PC races. 

I dare to say there are future plans for a non-fantasy d20, maybe Gamma World or d20 Modern, at least to allow adaptations of famous franchises set in the modern age (for example videogames). The challenge is d20 system isn't ready for crossovers among different titles. You can create a d20 Street Fighters, d20 Overwatch or a d20 Star Wars, but you can't use someone as "guest artist" in other titles because the balance of power could be broken. These different genres aren't ready to be mixed yet.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Well, what you are stating is kind of confusing.  After all, new books have added the same things we've seen in "[core book] 2".



 Yes, and all I'm stating is things WotC has said & done at various times, that, though they might have seemed reasonable (or not, in some cases), in isolation, don't add up when considered in light of eachother.

Is the market perhaps changing?  Sure!  But I don't think human nature and what constitutes a bar for confusing your product line can be changing all that fast.   ::



> Are you confused by Volo's guide to monsters?



I've not been confused by any of the thing WotC has said were dreadfully confusing, just by their insistence that they were confusing, and their going forwards with solutions to said confusion that were yet more confusing.  ;P  And, now, they've gone and left something that can't help but be confusing or off-putting alone, when they've gone to such great lengths before?  



> To me, the devs having more flexibility with the type of book they publish in addition to being less confusing to new players in addition to not causing any other negative side effects makes this a no brainer.



 IDK.  I can see that.  I can also wonder what the point of obfuscating the nature of a supplement, rather than stating it clearly right in the title is. 


Like I said, I have no conspiracy theory to offer, and I'm sure, it makes some sort of sense, in light of _everything_ WotC has to consider, but from the outsider perspective, not s'much.


----------



## Tony Vargas

R_J_K75 said:


> More I play 5E the more I dont like it.  I hope they come out with 6E soon or Im switching back to 2E.



I can't see what's not to like in 5e that's not not to like in 2e, too.
OK, yes, there are differences in the fiddly mechanical details, but overall, they're remarkably similar in function & feel.

2e has kits, 5e has backgrounds & sub-classes.  Fighters in 2e do tons of DPR (if you use optional weapon specialization), fighter in 5e do tons of DPR (if you use optional feats).  Monsters in 2e had their hps & damage upped significantly, Monsters in 5e had their hps & damage upped significantly.  2e had optional NWPs but you could probably just make an informal stat check to do whatever, 5e has skills that hardly matter, and you can probably just do whatever by describing it to the DM and maybe making a stat check.
…?



> Im not financially in a position to invest in a new game system.  I bought 1 or 2 about 10 years ago and they sat on my bookshelf until I sold them.  5E just isnt doing it for me, but I cant quite figure out why.



 That does sound frustrating.

Maybe you've just been confused by a book title?    j/k


----------



## Mistwell

Parmandur said:


> As someone who played World of Warcraft before seriously playing D&D, 4E's being an on-ramp for MMO never made sense. Doesn't now




It was the plan for 4e however:

"Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either. "


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, I know I'm confused.




It's honestly so simple I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

If you want to play the game, get the Player's Handbook. If you want to be a Dungeon Master, get the Dungeon Master's Guide. If you want more monster's to use in games, get the Monster Manual.

No idea where to start? Get the Starter's Kit. Want everything essential for character creation together in a box? Get the Essentials Kit.

They literally are all named precisely so you understand what they are.


----------



## Mistwell

3catcircus said:


> Stop the arms races involving armor class, attack bonus and hit points and 5e can remain evergreen.




Uh, they stopped the arms race involving AC and Attack Bonuses for the most part. Welcome to 5 years ago.



> It doesn't help their cause that the only things they've released with any consistency are giant, expensive hardback adventures. What they ought to be doing is developing 32-page adventures that are generic, setting-wise, but with a sidebar identifying where to locate in Greyhawk, FR, and Mystara. Do one every 4-6 months.




They've done this as well. Yeesh, it looks like you have only a vague passing familiarity with this edition dude.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Urriak Uruk said:


> It's honestly so simple I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse



 ...bit o' humor's all that was.



3catcircus said:


> 5e suffers from the same basic flaws as 4e and 3e in how it treats the core damage and healing mechanics and in how it treats advancement of hit points, attack bonus, hit points, etc.



So, 5e's slow, but even, "BA" proficiency advancement is the same problem as 4e's rapid but even 1/2 level advancement, and 3e's rapid, but uneven BAB & in-/cross- class skill ranks advancement?  



> Stop the arms races involving armor class, attack bonus and hit points and 5e can remain evergreen.



 The attack/AC race in 5e is more of a stroll.  You gain 4 whole points of attack bonus over 20 levels, monsters of about CR = level may have a similar gain in AC (though monster ACs can vary by more than 4 among monsters of the same CR, anyway).  Save DC/bonus can be a bit tighter, both can go up by exactly Proficiency + primary stat mod, but , there are at least some saves on virtually every class & monster that don't advance, at all.

Yes, hit-points/damage scales dramatically in 5e.  _Something_ has to scale in a level-based game.


----------



## R_J_K75

Tony Vargas said:


> I can't see what's not to like in 5e that's not not to like in 2e, too.
> OK, yes, there are differences in the fiddly mechanical details, but overall, they're remarkably similar in function & feel.
> 
> 2e has kits, 5e has backgrounds & sub-classes.  Fighters in 2e do tons of DPR (if you use optional weapon specialization), fighter in 5e do tons of DPR (if you use optional feats).  Monsters in 2e had their hps & damage upped significantly, Monsters in 5e had their hps & damage upped significantly.  2e had optional NWPs but you could probably just make an informal stat check to do whatever, 5e has skills that hardly matter, and you can probably just do whatever by describing it to the DM and maybe making a stat check.
> …?
> 
> That does sound frustrating.
> 
> Maybe you've just been confused by a book title?    j/k




5E and 2E are similar in some cases and its been so long since I played 2E that Im probably forgetting the bad things with.  Switching back at this point might just be trading one set of problems for another.  But I will say that when 3E came out the tone of the game changed.  Our group is taking a break until January, I'll give it some thought on what I want to do.


----------



## Tony Vargas

R_J_K75 said:


> 5E and 2E are similar in some cases and its been so long since I played 2E that Im probably forgetting the bad things with.  Switching back at this point might just be trading one set of problems for another.  But I will say that when 3E came out the tone of the game changed.  Our group is taking a break until January, I'll give it some thought on what I want to do.



Yeah, there was a definite return to the less self-conscious-story/angst, more kick-in-the-door, 'back to the dungeon' vibe with 3e.
5e doesn't come down hard on either side of that, though, AFAICT.  It's up to the DM what he wants to do with his campaign.


----------



## darjr

Wait, just because no one has done the research into ph2 confusion for 3.5 doesn’t mean it wasn’t confusing. We think we know PH2 was confusing for 4e because WotC did some research into what was up and found this out.

it could very well BE that PH2 3.5 was just as confusing for people. I know I am now.


----------



## Oofta

darjr said:


> Wait, just because no one as done the research into ph2 confusion for 3.5 doesn’t mean it wasn’t confusing. We think we know PH2 was confusing for 4e because WotC did some research into what was up and found this out.
> 
> it could very well BE that PH2 3.5 was just as confusing for people. I know I am now.




I'm just confused as to why this is even an issue.  There's no reason to keep the old convention other than "because that's the way they used to do it".


----------



## R_J_K75

Oofta said:


> I'm just confused as to why this is even an issue




If I walked into a store looking to buy my first PHB and all  I  saw was a PHB2 or PHB3 my first thought would be wheres the PHB1?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Parmandur

Mistwell said:


> It was the plan for 4e however:
> 
> "Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.
> 
> The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either. "




Insofar as that may have been an intention,frankly it failed.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> I mean, that's not crazy or anything:  if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing...
> ….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players?  While leaving the offending numbered book in print?
> And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition?  Surely that's at least as confusing?
> 
> I mean, I know I'm confused.




I don't know why a conspiracy theory is necessary, it was a confusing and obtuse release scheme. Xanathar's title doesn't show what it does, but the blurb does.


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Also, what does it mean to "keep an old convention?"



Good point.  If 5e had bundled the player-side material in the various supplements we've seen so far and instead released it in a PH2 that would not have been continuing an old convention.  Instead, it's _returned_ to an old convention, in publishing not-too-focused supplements with unintuitive and/or setting-referent names.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> And successfully!
> Looks like they learned something.



 Meh.  5e has done some things just exactly like all the classic eds, others it's continued the trend line over time, and others (like BA) it's gone the exact opposite of anything D&D has every done before.   

Picking one of those things and laying the current commercial success at it's feet isn't at all compelling.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## GreyLord

gyor said:


> In a sense 4e lives on. For 4e fans how reusable are elements from the board game for playing regular 4e D&D?




It depends.  They started a Levelling system with the most recent ones published (ToEE for example).  Up until DotMM you could only get to level 2, but with DotMM they increased the level limit to 4.  It's very similar to 4e combat, but simplified and lower powered in many ways.  

It obviously is more boardgame like so you really don't have skill challenges, skill usage, or free form play at all.


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Well, they certainly haven't been hurt by not naming a book "PHB 2" and using evocative and interesting names, have they?



Not having a quantum alternate universe they did do that in to check against, we can't say for sure.



> In fact, given the growth of new players to the hobby, perhaps we can at least assume they are doing something right? Just maybe?



Could be nothing but an accident of market timing.  Just a come-back that'd've played out the same whether they were selling anything from 5e DM-Empowered BA to Spawn of Fshawn nonsense between the covers.  Could be if they did even one tiny little thing different it'd've crashed and burned.  Maybe if they'd stayed with a +2 bonus instead of a second d20 for advantage, or given the fighter weapon specialization, or put a red idol on the cover of PH, that PF1 would still be beating them out in ICv2 rankings. 

Extensive analysis could give clues, of course, but we don't have that on here. And what WotC deigns to share never seems to add up to any sort of consistent picture.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Tony Vargas said:


> Good point.  If 5e had bundled the player-side material in the various supplements we've seen so far and instead released it in a PH2 that would not have been continuing an old convention.  Instead, it's _returned_ to an old convention, in publishing not-too-focused supplements with unintuitive and/or setting-referent names.




Here's the thing; what you're arguing is that in 5e, WotC should bite the bullet and make an updated PHB (or PHB 2) that includes many of the new changes and updates. You believe that this is less confusing for buyers, as they won't need to bother with something called "Xanathar's Guide to Everything," as a new player doesn't know what that means.

But Wizard's doesn't think like that. Instead, they think in two streams; products/marketing designed to bring in new players, and products/marketing to give to current players. Products like the Essentials Kit or Rick and Morty box are designed for new players, placed in places like Target, to bring in new players; they're simple and designed to be simple so someone can learn the game easy. Which for someone completely new to TTRPGs, is _confusing enough from the Starter's Kit_; it took me a while to figure out how magic works. Lumping more options makes it more difficult for people to learn the game and have fun playing it quickly.

The other products, like Xanathar's, are meant for current players. They're meant for people who now understand how 5e works, but want more options and tools to keep the game interesting. They are being retargeted, and making new purchases; it is later in the customer lifecycle.

This strategy is not only breathtakingly simple, it's also pretty successful.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

Urriak Uruk said:


> Here's the thing; what you're arguing is that in 5e, WotC should bite the bullet and make an updated PHB (or PHB 2) that includes many of the new changes and updates.



Nah, that got dragged into it, somehow.  

I was wondering why they hadn't updated the related boardgames to readily segway into 5e.  Or rather, I was finding the story as to why they didn't odd and even a tad contradictory.



Urriak Uruk said:


> This strategy is not only breathtakingly simple, it's also pretty successful.



It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one.
> But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.



Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.  
So the reflexive apologist tack of "well it's successful, so this specific detail must have been the only right choice," doesn't fly, even though it gets launched _constantly_ when the game is doing well (or even when it was doing very badly, but still better than all other RPGs).

I probably shouldn't always be rowing against such an overwhelming current.  I should just head for shore and leave this hobby to those who deserve it, since I, clearly, as one not keeping the faith, do not.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.
> So the reflexive apologist tack of "well it's successful, so this specific detail must have been the only right choice," doesn't fly, even though it gets launched _constantly_ when the game is doing well (or even when it was doing very badly, but still better than all other RPGs).
> 
> I probably shouldn't always be rowing against such an overwhelming current.  I should just head for shore and leave this hobby to those who deserve it, since I, clearly, as one not keeping the faith, do not.




Well, you are pushing "We should have a PHB 2 because that's what we did for the previous 2 editions."  Yet you can't really explain why it's such a big deal.

There are several things I dislike about 5E, but a design decision on what to name books that is clearer for the majority of people is a strange hill to die on.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Well, you are pushing "We should have a PHB 2 because that's what we did for the previous 2 editions."



No, I'm not.  Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.  

I do have some skepticism.  So I say "that's odd..."  and, the apologists rush to point out that the overall result is commercially successful, so it must be perfect in each and every isolated detail.  
And I can't just quietly let that go, because I'm just too pedantic and cynical.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> But pretty sure that not liking the name "PHB2" isn't a real article of faith; more just ... um, taste. Good taste.



It's fairly arbitrary.
It's interesting - odd - only that it was a non-issue in 2006, then called out as a huge mistake just a few years later.

But, actually, there have been two explanations offered that make a little sense:

1) In both cases, it was against 'tradition' to label a supplement that way. 
2) In 2010 there may have been more brand-new players engaging with the game than in 2006.

So, not completely futile.


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> No, I'm not.  Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.
> 
> I do have some skepticism.  So I say "that's odd..."  and, the apologists rush to point out that the overall result is commercially successful, so it must be perfect in each and every isolated detail.
> And I can't just quietly let that go, because I'm just too pedantic and cynical.




Huh?  Then I'll go back to ... what the heck are you talking about? 

Nobody has said that 5E is perfect.  Just that the decision to not have a PHB 2 was based on market research.  As they've explained in interviews and articles that some people see PHB 2 and think it's a revised edition and the one they need.  

Very few people seem to be confused about XGTE.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Urriak Uruk

lowkey13 said:


> Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one. 5e's unparalleled success is likely the result of an unusual confluence of factors, including (but not limited to) the following:
> 
> 1. Decent economy.
> 2. Cultural zeitgeist (desire to play more boardgames, social games, etc.).
> 3. "Return to the roost," nostalgia, players who grew up playing 1e and 2e wanting to play again and/or teach their kids.
> 4. Successful, simple, limited rollout schedule.
> 5. Success at new media (such as twitch and youtube) in promoting the product.
> 
> 
> ...and so on. But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.




These are all important factors and I won't downplay them. But I am one who believe's the team behind 5e has facilitated a marketing/product strategy designed to capitalize on these positives, instead of work against them.

5e's biggest strength is arguably it's ease of entry. It's a really easy system to learn, being largely; you roll a high number, you succeed. Low number you fail. If your good at something, you add more more. Bad you add less, nothing, or negative. Higher level you get, more stuff you can do, more likely you can hit, mire hit points you have.

That's largely it. Super simple to explain, super simple to do. The details are more complicated, as are specific spells, but that's 5e.

Add that to a drip-drip feed of mostly-quality books, and you have a game system that's extremely easy to become novice at, and sell supplementary books to as they master it.

Replace that strategy with one with a high volume of books released and a more complicated game, and I'm doubtful the game would be in quite as good a position as it it now.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> Huh?  Then I'll go back to ... what the heck are you talking about?



 I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then.  Which struck me as "odd."  

The explanation quoted from MM didn't seem consistent with some of the other things that'd been said over the years.  One of them was the PH2/Essentials circumlocution (though, of course, it didn't exactly make sense at the time, either).



> Nobody has said that 5E is perfect.



Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though.  Not perfect, then, just never odd?



> Very few people seem to be confused about XGTE.



 I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Um, how do you know it wasn't an issue in 2006?



 Absolutely no one made an issue of it.  WotC didn't throw it under the bus.

What I recall about the release of the 3.5 PH2 is that the Scout went over rather well, the Knight not s'much.  Zero controversy or confusion over the title.

But, actually, there have been two explanations offered that make a little sense:


----------



## Oofta

Tony Vargas said:


> I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then.  Which struck me as "odd."
> 
> The explanation quoted from MM didn't seem consistent with some of the other things that'd been said over the years.  One of them was the PH2/Essentials circumlocution (though, of course, it didn't exactly make sense at the time, either).
> 
> Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though.  Not perfect, then, just never odd?
> 
> I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.




The rules for the board game were quite simplified from 4E from what I remember (we played a few games at a friend's house).  There's just not enough reason to redo the rules and if they can sell them for a profit, why not?  

I don't find a company selling a game that only costs them manufacturing costs as particularly "odd".  More "what HASBRO does with all the rest of their board games".  If people are willing to buy it, why change?


----------



## Hussar

Tony Vargas said:


> Nah, that got dragged into it, somehow.
> 
> I was wondering why they hadn't updated the related boardgames to readily segway into 5e.  Or rather, I was finding the story as to why they didn't odd and even a tad contradictory.
> 
> It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.




I answered this pages ago but I think it got lost in the scrum.  Well, no, you brushed off my point by saying that 5e looks like 1e.   

They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical.  There's really very, very little difference.  Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e.  So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.  

Mechanically, at these levels?  4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game.  So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics?  They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Oofta said:


> The rules for the board game were quite simplified from 4E from what I remember (we played a few games at a friend's house).



 I'm not recalling a whole bunch of it.  But it was fairly recognizable, and had served as an on-ramp (we called it a 'gateway drug') to D&D.  



> I don't find a company selling a game that only costs them manufacturing costs as particularly "odd".



Sure, if it were the same three games, just keep 'em in print untill they stop selling.

They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it.  Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity?  For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> They haven't updated the board games' mechanics to 5e because, at low level, the 4e and 5e mechanics are virtually identical.



 I know that's one of your pet theories. 
OK, facts. 
On a basic mechanical level, before you get into, say, classes, advancement (BA), and the like, they are a bit more similar to eachother than any other two d20 games picked out of a hat at random, say.



> There's really very, very little difference.  Particularly coming from a board game where you don't have the chargen options that you would in 4e.  So, you have your low level character with a handful of powers and off you go.



Except in 5e you don't have a character with a handful of powers starting out.  If you've a caster, you have a handful of cantrips, and handful of spells, and a handful of slots to cast them with.  If not, you have a weapon or two, and rage or action surge or SA.
(Heck, now that I'm down this rabbit hole, anyway:  why didn't they update with Legend of Drizzt to reference Essentials-style characters?)  



> Mechanically, at these levels?  4e and 5e are so close they might as well be the same game.  So, why bother changing the board games' mechanics?  They work just as well as an on ramp to 5e as they did for 4e.



I may be mis-remembering how much the characters in Castle Ravenloft resembled D&D characters.  I'm going to have to at least glance at it again, before I come back to the discussion...


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> They did go ahead and develop more of them, though, after 5e dropped & was successful, without bothering to update it. Why not update it, so that players going from the boardgame to TTRPG find the same sense of familiarity? For that matter, so that you get more crossover sales the other way, too?




Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.


----------



## Oofta

Parmandur said:


> Because the original boardgames continue to sell, and they want to keep those fans happy. Meanwhile, nobody who moves to the TTRPG is confused by the differences.



Betrayal at Baldur's Gate is also labeled as a D&D game but only bears a passing resemblance to 5E.  It's more or less a FR version of Betrayal on House on the Hill.

There's no reason to rewrite the rules for old board games if they work.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

darjr said:


> I buy them used for the miniatures, I do like the board game but I never really get it to the table. I know it’s played a lot by other folks I know.




Just curious, did you buy Vault of Dragons? It's got something like 40 minis in it for $30, but the minis seem a little too small for use in a D&D game.


----------



## CleverNickName

This is one of my favorite things to speculate about.

D&D is doing so well now, with mainstream popularity, book sales, celebrity endorsements, and number of players at all-time highs.  A new edition probably isn't even in the works at the moment.  They seem to be putting all of their resources into more 5E content, like the new Eberron campaign setting, the Tyranny of Dragons modules, and the Baldur's Gate adventure path.  Whatever they are doing, it's clearly working.

If they are talking about a "Sixth Edition" at all (and I doubt they are), it's probably in the context of a different game.  It would be something that would let them test out new things without tampering with their highly-successful flagship product, and without risking its horde of consumers, like maybe a new edition of D20 Modern.  (Again, I don't think they are.  I don't even know why they would be.  But as long as we are speculating, this is my unfounded prediction.)


----------



## darjr

Urriak Uruk said:


> Just curious, did you buy Vault of Dragons? It's got something like 40 minis in it for $30, but the minis seem a little too small for use in a D&D game.



Not that one, that’s not one of the D&D Adventure System board games, I think.


----------



## Mistwell

Tony Vargas said:


> It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.




The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D. That evoking imagination with the rules presentation, and getting people to explore the rules rather than approach them like assembly instructions, is important to capturing people's interest and maintaining that interest.

Now they could be wrong. It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition. But given we don't have any data showing it's been harming the edition popularity, and it was the idea from the beginning to make it popular, and it is popular, it sure seems like continuing with that theme is wiser than not continuing with it. You would need some pretty good evidence showing it's both incidental to success and holding back success to make a major change in that theme at this point. 

So what's the evidence showing it's incidental, and the evidence showing it has held back success, sufficient to overcome the burden of "it's working so don't mess with success" that is the 1000 ton locomotive driving this edition right now?


----------



## Tony Vargas

Mistwell said:


> The entire theme of this editions rules presentation, from the very beginning to now, is that story is the most important thing surrounding D&D.



Is it?

Because all through the playtest it was "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D" … it's the 'big tent' ... it's gonna support all yer playstyles... I don't recall any story-first or shared-experience positioning at the time.  (Once AL got rolling, I started hearing those sound bites. And, I mean, _AL_ did provide a shared experience, much like Encounters had, and the living campaigns before that, so it wasn't exactly outta left field, just an organized play thang.  But, trying to make it retroactively the whole point of the kumbaya something-for-everyone edition of the playtest kinda is.)



> It could be all of that was incidental to the success of the edition.



Yep. It _could_ be.  There's no hard proof what's responsible for D&D's commercial success this time around.  There's myriad factors that could reasonably contribute.  Holding up commercial success to assert the importance/perfection/whatever of any one of them is simply not proof, and not even relevant.

Taking it as such is basically just a STFU to any sort of discussion.  Oh, the games doing so well, everything must continue to be done exactly as it is right now or it'll all crash & burn, don't even talk about anything that might not be perfect, it's all perfect, don't change a thing! great job WotC!

C'mon. What fun is that?


----------



## Mistwell

Tony Vargas said:


> Is it?
> 
> Because all through the playtest it was "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D"




Ah, the lie trotted out again, and spun in a new and even more inventive way.

It's baloney Tony. That was never what they said, but more importantly (and don't cherry pick the first part of this sentence out of context please) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE OF THE RULES PRESENTATION NEEDS TO BE STORY THEMED, they never ever even vaguely implied there was some conflicting interest with "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D" in terms of that kind of rules PRESENTATION.



> Yep. It _could_ be.




But you cut the rest of my post which already responds to what you had to say after that period.

Let's do that again. What is your response to this?

"But given we don't have any data showing it's been harming the edition popularity, and it was the idea from the beginning to make it popular, and it is popular, it sure seems like continuing with that theme is wiser than not continuing with it. You would need some pretty good evidence showing it's both incidental to success and holding back success to make a major change in that theme at this point. 

So what's the evidence showing it's incidental, and the evidence showing it has held back success, sufficient to overcome the burden of "it's working so don't mess with success" that is the 1000 ton locomotive driving this edition right now?"


----------



## Umbran

Mistwell said:


> Ah, the lie trotted out again, and spun in a new and even more inventive way.




*Mod Note:*

I think you need to be rather more careful about calling things lies.

There are many differences of opinion on these boards.  Even if you think a thing is well established fact, and someone does not agree with it... calling what they say a lie is not gong to take the discussion in a constructive direction - it makes the discussion about speaker honesty, not about whether what they say is correct.

So really, take more care next time, please.  Thanks.


----------



## Weiley31

The only good thing about a PHB 2 for 3.5 was the Duskblade.


----------



## Parmandur

Tony Vargas said:


> Taking it as such is basically just a STFU to any sort of discussion. Oh, the games doing so well, everything must continue to be done exactly as it is right now or it'll all crash & burn, don't even talk about anything that might not be perfect, it's all perfect, don't change a thing! great job WotC!




Nobody is saying anything is "perfect," but in the specific case of enumerated Core books, WotC conducted an experiment, found it failed after a handful of years, and has provided plausible explanations of the failure that ring true to human psychology. There really needs to be a plausible conspiracy theory to entertain an alternative possibility.

Similarly with the D&D Adventure System boardgames, which are running on a simplified 4E variant, they have also provided well grounded explanations of why they aren't rocking the boat with a working product.


----------



## ssvegeta555

3.5 PHBII was amazing. Had a lot of good content like the duskblade, spaheshift druid variant, fun spells for all classes and great high level feats. I find it an essential release. But content aside, I can see how the name can confuse some. Some might think it's a sequel, or an updated PHB obsoleting the first one, rather than an expanded book of options. At least it's not as confusing as Overwatch 2 and Path of Exile 2.


----------



## happyhermit

I can think of one boardgame that named an expansion "The Expansion" (after they botched the name the first time), surely this is the way of the future. Before long all expansions released will be "Expansion 2" "Expansion 3" etc. it's just a really great strategy in every way, leave it to Wotc to throw away such an inspiring idea and replace it with something less formulaic.


----------



## Hussar

Let's not forget, it wasn't just PHB II.  There was the PHB II and III DMG II, MM II and III, AND a Martial Power II as well.

All in a span of what, 3 years?  They were flooding the shelves with books and the titles weren't exactly clear were they?  What is a DMG II?  What is a Monster Manual III?  Because, really, the sequel books aren't all equal.  PHB I, II and III had all fairly similar content - class stuff.  But, DMG II had largely completely different content from DMG I and you really needed DMG I to DM the game.  But, you could quite easily play with a PHB II and a Monster Manual II.  

@Tony Vargas is ignoring the context of the situation when Mearl's talked about the numbering being confusing.  It wasn't JUST a PHB II.  There were EIGHT books in the core line (PHB/DMG/MM) and which ones you needed to play was certainly not clear just by looking at the covers.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

5th Edition was published in 2014. Maybe we will see in 2027 something like a Advanced Dungeon & Dragons 50th Anniversary Edition.

3.5 was fabulous, but too complex for newcomers.

Now players want to buy the remake of classic titles, or updated crunch, and new classes. A new edition isn't necessary because nothing has to be fixed yet. 

A board game for +7y children would need really simple rules, and for +12 something more complex is possible. 

The right strategy should be a d20 system game but set in the modern age, or an updated of d20 Future (Star*Drive, Dark-Matters, Star Frontiers or Gamma World). This would be a lower risk to introduce some new ideas.


----------

