The future of D&D

[Finarvyn]

Here is a doom-n-gloom blog post on the future of D&D. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with its points, but I thought it was an interesting read.

newbiedm.com/2011/02/28/wheres-dd-going/

And another blog, which seems to reference the first one.

www.myrpgame.com/2011/06/24/the-future-of-dd/

[Morandir]

Interesting for sure, but I always hesitate to buy into these sort of things. There seems to be speculation of a new edition of D&D, or a shift in the direction of "the brand," every time someone at WotC sneezes.

All I know is I will never buy RPG products from them again, unless they make the old material available again - not just in pdf, but as print-on-demand. I would much rather order a new copy of B10 from WotC than try to find one on eBay that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I may be in the minority there though.

[tombowings]

I would likewise be interested in buying old D&D material (OD&D especially) if it was put out by Wizards of the Coast. However, I find that unfortunate.

[aldarron]

I honestly don't think it matters one bit what WOTC does. The only way they could effect the old school movement would be to re release the Rules Cyclopedia to try to steal some of the clones thunder. Anything else they do is just going to send more players to other companies products.

I think the future will look an awful lot like the present.

[Falconer]

Assuming there’s no real money to be made in pen-and-paper RPGs anymore, is there a possibility that WotC would ever come to the conclusion that there is no point in developing any more editions? That it would be more profitable to do rolling reprints of their back catalog to regain maximal fan loyalty, and otherwise just focus on other parts of their business other than pen-and-paper RPGs?

[Finarvyn]

Jul 1, 2011 23:14:46 GMT -6 Falconer said:

it would be more profitable to do rolling reprints of their back catalog to regain maximal fan loyalty

This is the most mystifying thing to me, the fact that WotC hasn't exploited this potential gold mine.

Think about this: dozens of materials already ready to go. No R&D, no need to hire anyone to playtest. Just hire someone to do a new layout and print 'em off. POD is a neat idea, but I wonder if anyone as big as the Hasborg would ever bother with anything like that.

They might need to focus on a few product lines at a time, maybe AD&D 1E or 2E and then a ton of modules. (I'd prefer OD&D, but they might not want too many things that conflict with their own product line and AD&D 1E seems like a good fit since it's in the middle.)

The extra money brought in from re-releasing old products would make the RPG arm of WotC profitable, even if they do want to continue to develop a new product line at the same time.

[trebormills]

I really feel making old products available as PDF's or even print on demand would be a fab idea.

I was amazed when they decided to pull the pdfs from rpg now etc and then not make them available direct from them. A really bad PR move in my opinion- I was very upset, thankfully i had downloaded all my goods. I also feel Insider has been a badly rolled out product- great idea and terrible game plan. I was interested until failure to deliver and monthly costs etc etc

It would be a shame if DnD becomes a dead product with only old editions being played. The IP is great but being generic in most parts it is vunerable to new alternatives.

[jdn2006]

Right now old products as print-on-demand is all I would want to buy - something new and clean to replace a lot of my older, worn, yellowed materials. I look at newer games; unless I am starved (and I am on occasion) I don't find anything to buy.

The irony of gaming: people with money and little to buy...

[tombowings]

Similarly, I'm completely disinterested in a reformatting, the correction of typos, making sure the game is "complete" whatever. I've made my own little brown books and am happy with how they've turned out. I'd be willing to purchase a new set, but not if it was changed in any meaningful way.

[Azafuse]

IMHO there are too many D&D editions to choose which one should be reprinted first: people would rant if they get Moldvay first and AD&D1 later or viceversa.

I just hope in a thinner and playable ruleset for 5E.

[geoffrey]

I'd love for WotC to release as soon as possible a single, slender, old-school D&D rulebook. There's no reason that this rulebook couldn't be 64 pages. It would aim at being a Rosetta Stone for all editions of D&D, back to 1974. It would be very hands-off, rather like the S&W Whitebox rulebook. Basically it would say:

"Here are the skeleton rules for making a character and for combat. And here are a few spells, monsters, and magic items that have been with us since 1974. The rest is up to you. Now go imagine the hell out it, and Fight On!"

Then a one-line note saying that all of WotC's out-of-print titles are available in PDF and POD, and that referees and players might find them useful and/or inspiring for their D&D games.

And that's it. A single, 64-page rulebook, and PDFs and PODs of all their OOP stuff. Nothing else. That would be very OD&D.

[jasmith]

Relevant to the discussion, I think:

wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2011/07/paizo-outsells-wotc-in-rpg-books.html

Joe reported on a recent statement by Lisa Stevens, Paizo CEO, after she was asked:

"To be clear, though, you're saying that it's your belief that the Pathfinder brand has a higher sales volume than the D&D brand?"

Her reply:

"At this time in history, that is what I have been told by people in the hobby distribution trade, the book trade, and other avenues that both games sell their products into. If you talk to the various retailers, it is a mixed bag, with one telling you one thing and another a different story. But when you talk to the folks who sell those retailers the product that they sell, then you get a clearer picture.

And I am just talking table-top RPG business. I am not talking about board games or card games or video games or whatnot. Just books and digital copies of those books for use in playing a table-top RPG."

Interesting times.

[waysoftheearth]

I'm not sure I'd read it as doom-n-gloom, except perhaps for some of the marketing people in "The Industry".

But for us hobbyist gamers it hardly matters.

After my initial feelings of frustration/alienation/disbelief with 4E, I am now actually quite pleased with the way it has all turned out.

That is (at least, as I see it); WotC/Hasbro own the D&D "Brand" and will continue to churn out whatever "Product" the market will buy. If it wasn't WotC it would have been someone else doing the same. The "Brand" is slave to corporate balance sheets.

Meanwhile, perhaps even because of this, the "Hobby" has fallen back to where it really belongs; with the hobbyists. People like us.

We don't need the "Product" to keep us gaming. We have OD&D/AD&D, and our peers for inspiration -- and our limitless imaginations and the desire to keep on gaming.

There's no "Product" anywhere that can compete with that. It's only those rare gems that are complimentary to the above that I might consider buying nowadays

Either way, the "Hobby" will survive regardless of the "Brand" so long as people have that passion.

edit: spelling

[Morandir]

Hear hear!

[Mike]

I'm with Fin. WotC should reprint the back catalogue and retire to the Bahamas. Players locked into the 4E style wouldn't switch for old-school play so they're hardly going to be eroding their 4E market - they'd just be tapping a market that currently brings them no revenue!

[Falconer]

That’s my whole mantra, now: NO NEW EDITIONS! Just close the book on edition wars for good. Do what ICE does, and support multiple past editions (Rolemaster Classic, Rolemaster FRP, and HARP). Do rolling reprints based on demand, and occasional new products for each line.

[darkling]

I am of conflicting views on this. I don't think anyone can argue that we 'need' new editions. However, I kind of think that only the sticks in the mud wouldn't find a new, playable (e.g. unlike 4e) edition nice. New developments and new ideas are a good thing for the hobby as a whole. Even in the morass of 4e books there are cool things to take away, I am just annoyed that I have convert them to make them backwards compatible.

I have been reading Mearls' column and he seems to have a grand vision of a version of D&D that is easily modifiable and scalable (think of the Rules Cyclopedia where almost every other entry is prefaced with "Optional Rule:") and lets the individual gaming group play how they want while still allowing the company to produce supplementation and support.

However, I think the changes at WOTC are probably more indicative of the digitalization and death of the line rather than a new edition. Still, we can always hope.

[Falconer]

Jul 16, 2011 10:36:59 GMT -6 darkling said:

New developments and new ideas are a good thing for the hobby as a whole

That’s fine, but does the D&D brand always have to encompass them?

Besides, ironically, all the new ideas these days are coming out of the OSR, thanks to unorthodox, outside-the-box thinking. RPG products outside the OSR seem all cookie-cutter to me. Blah blah skills blah blah combat blah blah.

[rabindranath72]

The last two Legends & Lore posts by Mike Mearls indeed seem to point out to the development of a new game; why otherwise brainstorming on new mechanics, rules etc.?

The Essentials products are really a mixed bag. They have somewhat simplified character creation, but the game is exactly the same as before in actual play, with the aggravating facts that:
1) there are fewer spells/powers (and no Rituals, one of the best ideas in the game)
2) there are much fewer magic items
3) there are much fewer monsters
4) the DM-only information has been reduced

So, whereas with just the first 3 core books you could have a decently varied game, with the Essentials line you need three books and two boxed sets to get a "complete" game. Overall you get less stuff at an higher cost (partially mitigated by cardboard counters.)

Also the errata/updates are really destroying the game; it seems the game is in constant "development" which is not very professional; also it's not clear what is "errata" and what is "redesign" (and the two concepts need not match.)
They are slowly "phasing out" the old products, yet they have not declared a new "edition."

Personally, I play 4e (PHB, DMG and MM only) every now and then (Dark Sun has been redone very well,) but I stopped adding errata around March 2010, when it was clear they were simply "updating" the game into Essentials.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 20, 2011 2:57:04 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

the errata/updates are really destroying the game; it seems the game is in constant "development" which is not very professional

I'll say that it is frustrating when you feel like you are buying hardback playtest doccuments, and the quick switch from 4E to "essentials" made me feel kind of like that. (I know it was a couple of years, but it seemed fast.) So I have this dual-4E shelf with a bunch of 4E hardbacks and a bunch of "Essentials" boxed sets. I don't have enough experience with the game to decide how well they work together or if I have in fact two RPGs called 4E.

[rabindranath72]

Jul 20, 2011 6:13:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jul 20, 2011 2:57:04 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

the errata/updates are really destroying the game; it seems the game is in constant "development" which is not very professional

I'll say that it is frustrating when you feel like you are buying hardback playtest doccuments, and the quick switch from 4E to "essentials" made me feel kind of like that. (I know it was a couple of years, but it seemed fast.) So I have this dual-4E shelf with a bunch of 4E hardbacks and a bunch of "Essentials" boxed sets. I don't have enough experience with the game to decide how well they work together or if I have in fact two RPGs called 4E.

Yeah I know what you mean; I sold the core books in 2009 since I was already fed-up with the errata, and re-acquired them last week since I have found a new group who is keen on trying 4e and Dark Sun. I refused to buy the Essentials books for the above reasons, plus lack of shelf space; and I will run the game as mini-less as possible so I don't need the counters.
From 2009 to 2010 there was not a lot of significant errata (i.e. game-breaking stuff,) so I suppose that 4e "original" should be pretty stable up to 2010. From May 2010 all hell breaks loose, and if you apply the updates you will be turning your core books into Essentials ones, something I really don't care about. Consider also that the campaign setting books (including Dark Sun) were written with the PHB, DMG and MM in mind, so you would also need to change the setting information to use the Essentials stuff. No thanks.

I haven't tried the Essentials stuff in play but since the rules are more or less the same, they should work together. The only problem might arise if you want to mix the books and allow a player to pick stuff from the others.

[rabindranath72]

Oh, and some errata is really stupid: do you need to specify that you don't have line of sight to anything if you are swallowed by a crocodile?! I refuse to write such a thing on the book!

[darkling]

Jul 20, 2011 2:57:04 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Personally, I play 4e (PHB, DMG and MM only) every now and then (Dark Sun has been redone very well,) but I stopped adding errata around March 2010, when it was clear they were simply "updating" the game into Essentials.

This is one of the reasons I can't strongly argue for no new editions. Lots of things tend to get a facelift when a new edition comes out both conceptually and mechanically. And while I can't stand certain 4e mechanics (combat ick) I adore having an updated nicely organized Dark Sun campaign book. I own pretty much everything Dark Sun from 2e, the slapdash magazine updates from 3e, and the 4e books. And I use them to play Dark Sun in OD&D. It doesn't matter what the mechanics say, it's a solidly cool world that has always served to generate epic stories for me. And the 4e version of the campaign setting has some awesome ideas (even awesome mechanical ideas, for instance the character theme mechanic was what got me percolating on adding campaign world specific sub-classes to some of my OD&D games). Our hobby is built on new talent and new ideas having a domino effect through the community.

So scavenge from everywhere and use it to play whatever edition you want. They are all just toolkits.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Personally, while we're dreaming, I'd like to see WOTC open TSR's old IP catalogue to the public - including Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, etc. (I think Rick got Gangbusters back) and then they can go off and do whatever they want with their 4e and turn it into a card game or video game for all I care.

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....

[arcadayn]

Jul 20, 2011 7:59:07 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Oh, and some errata is really stupid: do you need to specify that you don't have line of sight to anything if you are swallowed by a crocodile?! I refuse to write such a thing on the book!

Considering the fact that in 4th Ed people in your own party don't obstruct line of sight (PVP has been clicked to "off" ), it was probably necessary.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 20, 2011 7:59:07 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Oh, and some errata is really stupid: do you need to specify that you don't have line of sight to anything if you are swallowed by a crocodile?! I refuse to write such a thing on the book!

My problem with this kind of errata is that it is a "common sense" thing that should just be adjudicated by the DM and not determined in the rulebook.

How many special cases do we need/want in a rulebook? Isn't this why OD&D books are so thin and newer rulebooks are so thick?

To a certain extent I had this issue with the switchover from OD&D to AD&D in the late 1970's. AD&D rulebooks cover so many specific cases, whereas I prefer a simple "roll something and I'll decide" format.

Probably because I'm a logical thinker but not a good memorizer; if I was a better memorizer perhaps I would prefer having everything worked out for me in advance.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 16, 2011 10:36:59 GMT -6 darkling said:

I don't think anyone can argue that....

By the way, this statement is bogus. One thing that I've learned from message boards is that no matter what the issue, there is always someone who will argue each side of it.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2011 12:55:52 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

One thing that I've learned from message boards is that no matter what the issue, there is always someone who will argue each side of it.

I DISAGREE!

[rabindranath72]

Jul 21, 2011 12:53:00 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jul 20, 2011 7:59:07 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

Oh, and some errata is really stupid: do you need to specify that you don't have line of sight to anything if you are swallowed by a crocodile?! I refuse to write such a thing on the book!

My problem with this kind of errata is that it is a "common sense" thing that should just be adjudicated by the DM and not determined in the rulebook.

How many special cases do we need/want in a rulebook? Isn't this why OD&D books are so thin and newer rulebooks are so thick?

To a certain extent I had this issue with the switchover from OD&D to AD&D in the late 1970's. AD&D rulebooks cover so many specific cases, whereas I prefer a simple "roll something and I'll decide" format.

Probably because I'm a logical thinker but not a good memorizer; if I was a better memorizer perhaps I would prefer having everything worked out for me in advance.

I totally agree. In fact, the original 4e rules were quite succinct in many respects; but the errata is changing those rules to reflect an higher degree of pedantry, probably to address all corner cases, which is quite self-defeating considering the initial hype w.r.t. 3e was "less rules." Personally, I simply add errata which is true; things which are meant to clarify or simply nitpick, I leave out.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 21, 2011 13:06:22 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Jul 21, 2011 12:55:52 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

One thing that I've learned from message boards is that no matter what the issue, there is always someone who will argue each side of it.

I DISAGREE!

Bummer. Well, "banned for life" for you, then! ;D